JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!

Legal news from Thursday, June 18, 2009

UK to hold first judge-only criminal trial
Devin Montgomery on June 18, 2009 4:30 PM ET

[JURIST] A judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals for England and Wales [official website] held Thursday that a court can require a judge-only criminal trial [judgment, PDF] for four men suspected of tampering with juries convened to consider robbery charges against them. The ruling is the first application of a Criminal Justice Act 2003 provision [text], which allows a court to hold a judge-only trial if there is "evidence of a real and present danger" that jury tampering may take place and it is determined that other measures to prevent tampering would be ineffective. Dismissing defense arguments that a criminal trial without a jury would violate Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights [text], Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge held that overarching principles of justice, the 2003 legislation, and potential burdens on jurors allowed for a compromise of the right:

In this country trial by jury is a hallowed principle of the administration of criminal justice. It is properly identified as a right, available to be exercised by a defendant unless and until the right is amended or circumscribed by express legislation. The constitutional responsibilities of the jury are, however, flouted if "the integrity of an individual juror, and thus of the jury as a whole, is compromised. Such a compromise occurs when any juror, whether because of intimidation, bribery or any other reasons, dishonours or becomes liable to dishonour his or her oath as a juror by allowing anything to undermine or qualify the juror’s duty to give a true verdict according to the evidence" ...

[T]he danger of jury tampering and the subversion of the process of trial by jury is very significant. The nature of the risk bears on the protective measures necessary to obviate it. At a lower level of risk than the risk which obtains here, it might be possible to agree ... that the lesser level of protective measures might suffice ... But in our judgment these protective measures do not sufficiently address the extent of the risk.
The law allowing for judge-only trials in both cases of jury tampering and fraud was passed [Guardian backgrounder] in 2003 and came into effect in 2007. It had earlier been rejected [JURIST report] by the House of Lords before undergoing revisions.

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

Sri Lanka rights violations should be probed by international commission: HRW
Jaclyn Belczyk on June 18, 2009 4:03 PM ET

[JURIST] An international commission should be set up [press release] to investigate human rights abuses that allegedly occurred during the 25-year civil war between the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [JURIST news archives], Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] said Wednesday. Earlier this week, a Sri Lankan government official announced Tuesday that an internal investigation [JURIST report] into human rights abuses during the conflict had ended. Deputy Asia director at HRW Elaine Pearson said "Sri Lanka's presidential commission of inquiry started with a bang and ended with a whimper. The need for an international inquiry into abuses by both sides is greater than ever." Peason added, "It's now up to concerned governments to step in and ensure that justice is done for the victims of abuses in Sri Lanka's long war." HRW alleges that there have been tens of thousands of killings and disappearances, resulting in relatively few prosecutions.

The announcement that the internal investigation had ended came just days after Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] urged [press release; JURIST report] the Sri Lankan government to conduct a more serious inquiry into possible human rights abuse cases, including the killing of 17 aid workers. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] recently asked [transcript; JURIST report] Sri Lanka's government to conduct a "proper investigation" of any "credible allegations of violations of humanitarian law" arising from the recent conflict between the government and the LTTE. Last month, the Council of the European Union [official website] called for an independent inquiry [conclusions, PDF; JURIST report] into possible war crimes committed during fighting between the Sri Lankan government and LTTE. In March, the Sri Lankan government denied [JURIST report] allegations by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile; JURIST news archive] that 2,800 civilian deaths caused by recent military action against the LTTE may constitute war crimes.

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

Senate passes bill blocking release of detainee photos
Jaclyn Belczyk on June 18, 2009 3:29 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Senate [official website] voted unanimously Wednesday to approve legislation [S 1100 materials] that would block the release of controversial photos [JURIST news archive] allegedly depicting abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation, which is included in a war spending bill, would exempt the disclosure of certain photographs under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text] in cases where the secretary of defense certifies that such disclosure would endanger US personnel. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) [official websites] praised the passage of the bill [press release], calling it, "essential to protecting our fighting men and women." The bill must now go before the US House of Representatives [official website].

Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] ruled that the US government can continue to withhold photos [JURIST report] of alleged detainee abuse while it awaits a response from the US Supreme Court [official website]. The appellate-level decision followed a recent Supreme Court order [JURIST report] granting the government a 30-day extension to appeal a ruling mandating the release of the controversial photos, setting the new deadline to July 9. In May, US President Barack Obama decided to seek a delay [JURIST report] of the release of the photographs in question, contrary to a previous agreement by the DOJ to release them pursuant to a court order [order, PDF]. The original district court order resulted from a FOIA challenge [ACLU materials] brought by the American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website] against the Department of Defense. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] affirmed the order in April.

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

Zimbabwe government urged to address 'persistent and serious' rights violations
Christian Ehret on June 18, 2009 1:31 PM ET

[JURIST] Zimbabwe is still experiencing serious human rights violations [press release] and needs to confront issues that led to such problems, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] said Thursday. Calling the violations "persistent and serious," AI called for Zimbabwean leaders to reform police, army, and security forces and address the lack of government commitment to rectifying human rights issues. AI urged the government to implement the Global Political Agreement (GPA) [text, PDF], which provides a framework for reformations and was signed by the three most prominent political parties. AI has concluded that defenders of human rights, journalists, and lawyers are being intimidated and arrested, citing prosecutions against 15 activists who were abducted last year along with several politicians. Additionally, AI cited seven members of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) [advocacy website] who were subjected to "enforced disappearances" last year and have yet to be found. The press release also mentioned other concerns, including a heavily restricted right to protest, violence against farms and farm workers, and problems with the education system. AI Secretary General Irene Khan [professional profile], returning from a six day trip to Zimbabwe, addressed the concerns of the rights group, saying:

The government must give as much attention to securing human rights reforms as they are to seeking economic resources. There seems to be no sense of real urgency to bring about human rights changes on the part of some government leaders. Words have not been followed by effective action. No serious efforts have been made to reform the security sector. No major investigation or prosecution has been brought against those responsible for state-sponsored political violence in recent years. Some elements of [the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front] still see the use of violence as a legitimate tool to crush political opponents. The combination of these factors could again generate grave human rights abuses in the lead up to future elections.

Khan called on President Robert Mugabe [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai [official website] to instruct party activists to stop their harassment, intimidation, and threats against political opponents and advocates.

Last month, a Zimbabwe court released 15 human rights activists on bail, including activist and journalist Jestina Mukoko [advocacy website; JURIST news archive]. Mukoko, the director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project (ZPP) [advocacy website], was indicted with others for allegedly planning a coup against Mugabe. After being held without charges from December through March and allegedly tortured, Mukoko was hospitalized [Zimbabwe Times report] for the treatment of injuries sustained while in custody. While detained, it was reported that Mukoko was forced to ingest poison [JURIST report], sparking a world-wide protest against Zimbabwean police tactics.

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

Iran activists arrested following election protests
Christian Ehret on June 18, 2009 11:51 AM ET

[JURIST] Political activists and politicians in Iran have been arrested following protests of the country's controversial presidential election [BBC backgrounder], human rights groups said Wednesday. According to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran (ICHRI) [advocacy website], former foreign minister and current leader of the Freedom Movement of Iran [official website] Ebrahim Yazdi was arrested [press release] Wednesday in a Tehran hospital. ICHRI also reported the arrests of economist Saeed Laylaz, youth activist Mohammadreza Jalaieepour, Freedom Movement political director Mohammad Tavasoli, and other officials and activists. Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] reported that 17 political activists were arrested [press release] and taken to "unspecified locations" after staging a peaceful protest in a public square in the city of Tabriz. A spokesman for ICHRI addressed the increased repression, saying:

Iranian intelligence and security forces are using the public protests to engage in what appears to be a major purge of reform-oriented individuals whose situations in detention could be life-threatening. The authorities are responsible for the health and safety of these people and should be held accountable.

Calling for Iranian authorities to respect and nurture debate, AI stressed [press release] Thursday that "healthy debate on issues of fundamental importance to people's lives" informs, rather than threatens, policy makers.

On Tuesday, Iran's Guardian Council of the Constitution [official website, in Persian] said that it would conduct a partial recount [JURIST report] of the disputed election results after the country's spiritual leader and highest authority Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [official profile; BBC profile] ordered an investigation on Monday into allegations of voter fraud. Khamenei's order came after protests took place [AP report] throughout the country following last weekend's announcement of a victory by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] over reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi [IranTracker profile]. Ahmadinejad, who has been president of Iran since 2005, has been a controversial figure. In April, delegates to the UN Durban Review Conference on Racism [official website] walked out [JURIST report] of a speech [text, PDF] by Ahmadinejad after he described Israel as "totally racist." Last June, a division of the Iranian Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance [official website, in Persian] revoked the license [JURIST report] of Iranian daily newspaper Tehran Emrouz [official website, in Persian] for printing articles that criticized the policies of Ahmadinejad. Allegations of fraud [JURIST report] also surrounded Ahmadinejad's 2005 election victory.

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

Supreme Court finds no constitutional right to post-conviction DNA evidence testing
Jaclyn Belczyk on June 18, 2009 11:21 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] issued opinions in four cases Thursday. The Court ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 in District Attorney's Office v. Osborne [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that a defendant does not have the right to obtain post-conviction access to the state’s biological evidence in order to do DNA testing. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that Osborne had a right to access the evidence against him on appeal, under Section 1983 [text] and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause, even though his lawyer made a strategic decision to forgo independent DNA analysis for the trial. In reversing the opinion below, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty. It has the potential to significantly improve both the criminal justice system and police investigative practices. The Federal Government and the States have recognized this, and have developed special approaches to ensure that this evidentiary tool can be effectively incorporated into established criminal procedure — usually but not always through legislation.

Against this prompt and considered response, the respondent, William Osborne, proposes a different approach: the recognition of a freestanding and far-reaching constitutional right of access to this new type of evidence. The nature of what he seeks is confirmed by his decision to file this lawsuit in federal court under 42 USC § 1983, not within the state criminal justice system. This approach would take the development of rules and procedures in this area out of the hands of legislatures and state courts shaping policy in a focused manner and turn it over to federal courts applying the broad parameters of the Due Process Clause. There is no reason to constitutionalize the issue in this way.
Justice John Paul Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and joined in part by Justice David Souter. Souter also filed a separate dissenting opinion.

The Court ruled [opinion, PDF] 6-3 in Yeager v. United States [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that a criminal defendant cannot face new prosecution for counts on which a jury failed to reach a verdict but that share a common element with other counts of which the defendant has been acquitted. Petitioner F. Scott Yeager was a former Enron [JURIST news archive] executive who was charged with wire fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, money laundering, and conspiracy to engage in securities fraud and wire fraud. A jury acquitted Yeager of the conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud charges, but failed to reach a verdict on the insider trading and money laundering charges. Prosecutors then issued another indictment charging Yeager with money laundering and insider trading. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] the district court's denial of Yeager's motion to dismiss the charges. Stevens wrote the majority opinion, which reversed the opinion below and resolved a circuit split on whether such a prosecution violates the Double Jeopardy Clause [LII backgrounder] of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined. Alito also filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Scalia and Thomas.

The Court ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 in Gross v. FBL Financial Services [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that age was the determining factor in an age discrimination in employment suit and that a mixed-motive jury instruction is never appropriate in such a case. The case involves an executive, Jack Gross, who claims he was passed over for a promotion at FBL Financial Services [corporate website] in favor of a younger employee in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) [text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] in May 2008 that if a plaintiff presents direct evidence in ADEA case, the jury can be given a mix-motive instruction. In vacating that ruling, Thomas wrote:
We hold that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim pursuant to the ADEA must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision.
Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Breyer also filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Souter and Ginsburg.

The Court ruled [opinion, PDF] 7-2 in Travelers Indemnity v. Bailey [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to approve a third-party injunction provision in a plan of reorganization or related confirmation order. The cases arise from the bankruptcy of asbestos manufacturer Johns-Manville Corp. [corporate website]. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2004 held [opinion, PDF] that a bankruptcy court lacked that jurisdiction. Overturning that decision in a "narrow ruling," Souter wrote, "[w]e hold that the terms of the injunction bar the actions and that the finality of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders following the conclusion of direct review generally stands in the way of challenging the enforceability of the injunction." Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Ginsburg.

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

Spain weighing US request to take 4 Guantanamo detainees
Christian Ehret on June 18, 2009 10:34 AM ET

[JURIST] Spain will consider accepting four Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees at the request of the US government, foreign minister Miguel Angel Moratinos [official profile, in Spanish] said Wednesday. Before Spain responds to the request, Moratinos said that the government will consider the charges [ABC report, in Spanish] against the prisoners, determine whether accepting them will pose any problems with other countries, and consider other legal ramifications involved in their acceptance. Additionally, the Spanish government said that the prisoners in question must be willing to be transferred [El Pais report, in Spanish] to the country. US special envoy for the closure of the detention facility Daniel Fried [profile] presented the request to representatives of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice [official websites, in Spanish] in Madrid.

The request follows a recent joint agreement [JURIST report] between the US and the European Union (EU), which specifies terms for EU countries accepting Guantanamo detainees. On Monday, a spokesperson for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi [official profile, in Italian] said that Italy would be willing to accept up to three detainees [AP report], having previously said that it was unwilling to do so [JURIST report]. Last week, Council of Europe [official website] Human Rights Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg [official profile] sent a letter [text] to all member states urging them [JURIST report] to welcome certain released detainees. The Spanish government's consideration of potential problems with other countries in accepting the four detainees is likely due to an agreement [JURIST report] made earlier this month which set forth consultation and information sharing requirements to minimize any danger posed to other member states.

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

Rhode Island legislators approve medical marijuana bill over governor's veto
Christian Ehret on June 18, 2009 9:00 AM ET

[JURIST] The Rhode Island General Assembly [official website] approved a medical marijuana bill [H 5359 text, PDF] Tuesday, overriding a veto from Governor Donald Carcieri [official website]. The legislation seeks to establish three state-licensed dispensaries to provide marijuana for patients who qualify. Patients will be issued a registry identification card and will be allowed to possess up to 12 mature plants and two and a half ounces of usable marijuana. Qualifying ailments include cancer, glaucoma, HIV, Hepatitis C, wasting syndrome, severe chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, muscle spasms, and other medical conditions. Additionally, the legislation provides for patients to have caregivers that are allowed to possess and grow marijuana for patients' use, limiting a caregiver to five patients. The bill, which was approved unanimously [press release] in the state House and by a 35-3 vote in the Senate [official website], marks the third time state legislators overrode a governor's veto of medical marijuana legislation. Representative Thomas Slater, who is in treatment for cancer, sponsored the bill, saying:

For the more than 600 Rhode Islanders who rely on medical marijuana to help relieve the unimaginable suffering that some diseases cause, or to relieve their nausea enough to take food, this will provide not only relief and safety, but also dignity. Sick people should not be forced to associate with drug dealers and the dark underbelly of society to get the help they need. I’m glad we’re finally recognizing their right to access marijuana safely, legally and without needless shame or fear
The law makes Rhode Island the third state to allow medical marijuana dispensaries, along with California and New Mexico. The Rhode Island Patient Advocacy Coalition [advocacy website] stressed the importance of dispensaries [text], saying that not all patients in need will have a caregiver or the ability to produce their own marijuana, forcing them to obtain their medicine illegally and putting them at risk.

The approval of the legislation follows a recent US Department of Justice [official website] decision not to continue prosecuting [JURIST report] owners of medical marijuana facilities that do not violate state law. During the Bush administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration [official website] routinely raided medical marijuana dispensaries because they violated federal law. Raids occurred as recently as February [Washington Times report], to the disappointment of President Barack Obama, who, during his campaign, pledged to end raids [Boston Globe report]. Michigan became the most recent state to legalize the use of medical marijuana by passing a proposition [JURIST report] last November. The US Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich [opinion text; JURIST report] upheld Congress's power to criminalize the growth and personal use of marijuana for medical purposes.

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

Eleventh Circuit rejects HealthSouth settlement challenge
Christian Ehret on June 18, 2009 7:46 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] on Wednesday rejected challenges [opinion, PDF] to a securities fraud class action suit brought by former HealthSouth [corporate website] CEO Richard Scrushy [defense website; JURIST news archive], affirming a $445 million settlement against the HealthSouth corporation. Scrushy, who did not settle, argued that the district court erred in allowing the bar order to negate his contractual rights as a corporate officer to be reimbursed by the corporation for a "good faith settlement." Additionally, Scrushy contended that the district court erroneously barred his contractual claim against the corporation for advancement of his defense costs incurred in the litigation. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the bar order preclusion of Scrushy's contribution and indemnification claims is not inconsistent with the Private Securities Litigation and Reform Act [text], as he contended. For the legal fees, the court held that Scrushy's claim is not a truly independent claim that is per se inappropriate to bar, rejecting the argument that such contractual claims can not be precluded by bar orders. The court also rejected public policy arguments raised for both of the issues.

In 2007, the US Securities and Exchange Commission settled its accounting fraud claims [JURIST report] against Scrushy for $81 million. In 2005, Scrushy was acquitted [JURIST report] of criminal charges of wire and mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In 2003, HealthSouth conceded that its prior financial statements had overstated its income and assets by a substantial amount. Several class action suits were subsequently filed by investors against the company and its officers for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The actions were consolidated and, in 2006, the $445 million settlement was reached. Last month, the Eleventh Circuit denied Scrushy's petition [JURIST report] for an en banc rehearing of his conviction for unrelated federal bribery and corruption charges for paying campaign debts of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman [official profile] in exchange for a seat on a state-operated review board that regulates Alabama hospitals.

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

Obama extends benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
Brian Jackson on June 18, 2009 7:23 AM ET

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama [official website] on Wednesday signed [statement] a memorandum [text, PDF] that would provide certain benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees. In a fact sheet [text] released earlier in the day, the White House disclosed that the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State have been working for several months to determine what benefits may be extended under existing law [Defense of Marriage Act]. In terms of what benefits will be extended, the fact sheet states,

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

In his statement, Obama also announced his support for the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act [HR 2517 materials], which was introduced in the House in late May. Gay rights group Human Rights Campaign [advocacy website] has called the memorandum [press release] "an important first step" toward achieving equality, but others have criticized it [NYT op-ed] for not including health care or retirement benefits.

Several states have recently passed legislation to allow same-sex marriages, which would grant gay couples access to all the rights and benefits available to heterosexual married couples. Last month, Maine became the fifth state to allow same-sex marriage [JURIST report] when Governor John Baldacci signed a same-sex marriage bill into law. In April, Vermont became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through a vote of the legislature, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa [JURIST reports] as the other states that allow same-sex marriage.

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

Holder tells Senate judiciary committee hate crimes legislation is a DOJ priority
Brian Jackson on June 18, 2009 6:44 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] told the Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] Wednesday that passing hate crimes legislation is one of his top priorities [prepared statement] for the future, during the first Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] oversight hearing [materials; video] of the Obama administration. In a prepared statement that covered a wide variety of topics, Holder also discussed counter-terrorism efforts, the closure of Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive], border security, and the DOJ's commitment to civil rights. In his introductory remarks, Holder said:

I testified during my confirmation hearings earlier this year that under my leadership, the Department would pursue a very specific set of goals: ensuring public safety against threats both foreign and domestic; ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans; assisting our state and local partners; and defending the interests of the United States according to the law. I believe we are on the right path to accomplish those goals.

First, we are working to strengthen the activities of the federal government that protect the American people from terrorism and are doing so within the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Let me be clear: we need not sacrifice our core values in order to ensure our security. Adherence to the rule of law strengthens security by depriving terrorist organizations of their prime recruiting tools. America must be a beacon to the world. We can lead and are leading by strength, by wisdom, and by example.

Second, we are working to ensure that the Department of Justice will always serve the cause of justice, not the fleeting interests of politics. For example, law enforcement decisions and personnel actions must be untainted by partisanship.

Third, we are working to reinvigorate the traditional missions of the Department. Without ever relaxing our guard in the fight against global terrorism, the Department is also embracing its historic role in fighting crime, protecting civil rights, preserving the environment, and ensuring fairness in the market place.
Holder also fielded questions from committee members on a range of topics, from his plans to deal with Mexican drug cartels to the recent arrest of 24 individuals [JURIST report] suspected of trafficking in Native American artifacts.

In a speech to a Washington audience Tuesday, Holder called for stricter hate crimes laws [JURIST report], citing recent violence against Dr. George Tiller and at the US Holocaust Museum. Holder mentioned the recent House of Representatives [official website] approval [JURIST report] of the Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 [HR 1913 text], which broadens the definition of hate crimes to include those based on sexual orientation, gender identity and disabilities. The proposed legislation seeks to expand current legislation which only covers crimes based on race, religion or national origin. In 2007, the House approved [JURIST report] a similar hate crimes bill, and the US Senate also passed [JURIST report] similar legislation in the form of an amendment to the 2008 Senate Defense Reauthorization Bill [HR 1585 materials]. However, the broadened language was ultimately removed [JURIST report] during House and Senate negotiations.

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

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


Unprecedented Notice of Warrantless Wiretapping in a Closed Case
Ramzi Kassem
CUNY School of Law

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!


Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL


Subscribe to Paper Chase by e-mail. JURIST offers a free once-a-day digest [sample]. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.

R|mail e-mails individual Paper Chase posts through the day. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.


Join top US law schools, federal appeals courts, law firms and legal organizations by publishing Paper Chase legal news on your public website or intranet.

JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.

Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.


Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.


Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org