| THIS DAY AT LAW |  |
| Today in legal history... |
 |
|
 Sunday, February 12, 2012
Federal court rejected cases linking childhood vaccines to autism
On February 12, 2009, the US Court of Federal Claims rejected arguments made in three test cases against the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by families alleging that their children's autism was caused by a combination of common childhood vaccines. The so-called Omnibus Autism Proceeding, rejected three theories of liability which each argued that some combination of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella combination vaccine (MMR) vaccines and thimerosal-containing vaccines can combine to cause autism. In the court's decision, Special Master Patricia Campbell-Smith wrote that the petitioners had not "presented a scientifically sound theory," and cited evidence that it was "biologically implausible." In August 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision, finding insufficient evidence to establish a link between childhood vaccines and autism.
Learn more about the laws governing vaccines from the JURIST news archive and read commentary on HHS decisions from JURIST Guest Columnists Richard Judelsohn and Amy Pisani from Hotline.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Sri Lanka high court agreed to review opposition candidate arrest
On February 12, 2010, Sri Lanka's Supreme Court agreed to consider a petition challenging the arrest of opposition presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka, who was arrested "in connection with certain fraudulent acts and other military offences." Incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa alleged that Fonseka was planning a coup and Sri Lankas rejected a petition to immediately release Fonseka. 0n August 13, 2010, a Sri Lanka court martial found Fonseka guilty of engaging in politics while on active duty and sentenced him to a dishonorable discharge. Fonseka initially said he would appeal his conviction. However, Fonseka was also convicted by court-martial on charges of corruption in September 2010 and sentenced to three years in prison.
Flag of Sri Lanka
Learn more about Sri Lanka and Sarath Fonseka from the JURIST news archive.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Federal judge upheld firing of medical marijuana user
On February 11, 2011, a federal judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan ruled that Wal-Mart did not wrongly fire an employee, Joseph Casias, who tested positive for medical marijuana he was using to treat a brain tumor. In the decision [PDF], Judge Robert Jonker found that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) protects licensed medical marijuana users but does not prohibit employers from adopting policies banning marijuana use, regardless of the cause. In June 2011, the Washington Supreme Court ruled similarly that their state's Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MUMA) does not prohibit private employers from firing an employee who fails a mandatory drug screening.
Marijuana
Learn more about the laws governing medical marijuana from the JURIST news archive.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Egypt military pledged to lift emergency laws as Mubarak stepped down
On February 11, 2011, the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces pledged to lift the country's emergency laws, which have been since the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. The announcement came in the immediate aftermath of widespread protests that forced President Hosni Mubarak's resignation and subsequent allegations of abuse of power and culpability in the deaths of protestors. In August 2011, Egypt's interim government, the Cabinet of Ministers voted to begin measures to end the country's state of emergency. However, the laws were reinstated and expanded after a September 2011 attack by protestors on the Israeli embassy. A partial suspension of the emergency laws was announced on January 25, 2012.
Egyptian coat of arms
Learn more about Egypt and the country's emergency laws from the JURIST news archive and read commentary on the issue from JURIST Guest Columnist Shafiq Jamoos in Hotline.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
Arizona governor countersued US government over immigration law
On February 10, 2011, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and state Attorney General Tom Horne filed a counterclaim [PDF] in the US District Court for the District of Arizona against the US government in an ongoing lawsuit challenging a controversial Arizona immigration law. The counterclaim included five counts against the federal government, including alleged violations of both the Secure Fence Act of 2006 for losing control of the border with Mexico and Article IV of the US Constitution for failing to protect Arizona from an "invasion" of illegal immigrants. The validity of Arizona's immigration law is currently awaiting consideration from the US Supreme Court. The Court granted certiorari in December 2011 and the case is scheduled for review by April 2012.
Learn more about Arizona and immigration from the JURIST news archive and read commentary on state immigration laws from JURIST Guest Columnist Victor Romero in Forum.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Canada high court ruled government may withhold national security evidence
On February 10, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld challenged portions of the Canada Evidence Act, ruling that national security considerations take precedence over criminal convictions. Noting the need for balance between ensuring security and a fair judicial system, the court affirmed the constitutionality of a provision giving prosecutors authority to withhold evidence with national security implications. The provision replaces the authority of local trial judges with that of the Federal Court, Canada's national trial court. The case originated from the prosecutions of the "Toronto 18," who were arrested in 2006 after police learned of their plans to bomb sites throughout Ontario using fertilizer explosives in response to Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.
Flag of Canada
Learn more about Canada and the Toronto 18 from the JURIST news archive and read commentary on the Toronto 18 trial from JURIST Guest Columnist Beenish Gaya in Forum.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Federal appeals court ruled inmate strip searches constitutional
On February 9, 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling [PDF] upholding the constitutionality of strip searching incoming inmates. The court found that strip searches are reasonable, considering both the nature of the US prison system and the documented evidence of illegal materials entering prisons. The Ninth Circuit ultimately ruled that such searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and were "facially reasonable." The decision overturned the 1984 Ninth Circuit decision, Giles v. Ackerman, that limited strip searches to inmates accused of violent or drug-related crimes.
Learn more about the laws governing prisoner's rights from the JURIST news archive.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Turkish parliament formally approved headscarf ban amendment
On February 9, 2008, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey passed a constitutional amendment easing the country's ban on Islamic headscarves. The amendment, which had received preliminary approval earlier that week, allowed Muslim women to begin wearing headscarves in universities. Based on concerns that the ban effectively denied some Muslim women access to higher education, the easement's passage met fierce opposition from protesters that interpreted it as a political attack on the country's secular principles. However, the Constitutional Court of Turkey struck down the amendments to the Turkish Constitution in October 2008 on the basis that they "indirectly [change] and [make] nonfunctional the basic features of the republic."
Flag of Turkey
Learn more about headscarf bans and burqas from the JURIST news archive.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
House failed to pass Patriot Act extension
On February 8, 2011, a bill renewing three provisions of the USA Patriot Act failed to secure the two-thirds majority in the US House of Representatives required to renew the Act. The expiring provisions allow roving surveillance, compel production of business records and "other tangible things" under section 215 of the Act, and allow the US to target non-US persons under the "lone wolf" amendment, section 6001. The House attempted to consider the Act's renewal under a "suspension of the rules" procedure, which limits debate and is typically reserved for non-controversial, bipartisan bills. A short-term extension passed the House on February 17, 2011, and President Barack Obama signed a bill on May 26, 2011 which extended the legal effect of the Act through 2015.
Read an overview of the Patriot Act and the other legal consequences of 9/11 in Features.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Former Egypt VP announced committee to reform constitution
On February 8, 2011, former Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman announced that then-President Hosni Mubarak approved establishing a committee to reform the Egyptian Constitution [PDF]. The announcement followed other attempts to conciliate opposition leaders in response to the popular protest movement that began January 25, 2011. The proposed reforms failed to appease the protestors, who succeeded in ousting Mubarak from office on February 11, 2011.
Coat of Arms of Egypt
Learn more about Egypt and the laws governing constitutions from the JURIST news archive.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Texas legislators questioned legality of HPV executive order
On February 7, 2007, state legislators asked Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to issue an opinion on an executive order mandating that sixth-grade girls be vaccinated for the human papillomavirus (HPV). The lawmakers also requested that Abbott advise the legislature on actions it could take to override the executive order, which Governor Rick Perry issued in early February 2007. Lawmakers quickly advanced a bill to rescind the order. The Texas House of Representatives' Public Health Committee voted 6-3 in favor of the bill, which was sponsored by more than 90 of the 150 House members. The bill provided, in part, that "[i]mmunization against the human papilloma virus may not be required for a person's admission to any elementary or secondary school," and it explicitly pre-empts "all contrary executive orders of the governor."
Learn more about Texas, vaccines and HPV from the JURIST news archive.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
New Bolivia constitution took effect
On February 7, 2009, Bolivia's new constitution, which gave more power to the country's indigenous majority, went into effect. The new charter provided for redistribution of land and natural resource revenues, the creation of congressional seats reserved for indigenous representatives, and the institution of special courts for indigenous communities. It also prohibited the posting of foreign military bases within the country and eliminated an existing one-term limit on Bolivian presidents. The new constitution had been strongly opposed in regions where more voters own land or are of European descent, but was nevertheless approved in a national referendum in January 2009. By March 2009, Bolivian President Evo Morales began redistributing land to indigenous farmers.
Flag of Bolivia
Learn more about Bolivia, indigenous peoples, and the laws governing constitutions from the JURIST news archive.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Monday, February 06, 2012
Ninth Circuit upheld class certification in Wal-Mart discrimination case
On February 6, 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for allegedly discriminating against female employees should go to trial. The decision upheld a 2004 certification from the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Wal-Mart had appealed to the Ninth Circuit in 2005, arguing that the six lead plaintiffs were not typical or common of the class. Wal-Mart also objected to the size of the class certified, which they say is the largest in US history and would violate its due process rights. Wal-Mart petitioned the US Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted in December 2010. On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit, ruling [PDF] that the women failed to meet the requirements for class certification.
Ninth Circuit
Learn more about gender discrimination from the JURIST news archive, and read commentary on the issue from JURIST Guest Columnist Sandra Sperino in Forum.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
Italy president blocked measure to stop euthanasia of comatose woman
On February 6, 2009, Italian President Giorgio Napolitano refused to sign a governmental decree intended to stop the removal of Eluana Englaro's feeding tube. Englaro had been in a coma since an automobile accident in 1992 and her father, Beppino Englaro, had been fighting to have her feeding tube removed since 1999. Napolitano said the decree was unconstitutional because it would effectively overrule the previous year's decision by the country's Court of Cassation to allow removal of the tube, and violate separation of power. Although Italy's Constitutional Court upheld a lower court's ruling to keep her feeding tube in place in 2005, the Constitutional Court ultimately rejected a parliamentary challenge to an appelate court decision which held doctors could remove Enlargo's feeding tube because she was found to be in an 'irreversible' vegetative state. She died on February 9, 2009.
Flag of Italy
Learn more about the laws governing euthanasia, the "right to die" and Italy from the JURIST news archive, and read commentary on the issue from JURIST Guest Columnists Derek Humphry and Ken Connor in Hotline.
Link post |
IM post | go to JURIST | © JURIST, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
SYNDICATION
