[U.S. 3rd Cir., July 21, 2008] – A federal appeals court threw out the $550,00 fine imposed by the FCC against CBS for Janet Jackson’s “fleeting image of nudity” on national television during the 2004 Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show broadcast, an incident that may best be remembered more for its “wardrobe malfunction” defense.
Sen. Feingold Criticizes Warrantless Laptop Seaches
July 3, 2008 — lennyesq |
[JURIST] US Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) [official website] has criticized the Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) [official website] warrantless searches and seizures of travelers’ laptops and other digital devices at the US border, calling the searches anunacceptable invasion of privacy [hearing materials]. The Supreme Court has held that reasonable suspicion is not necessary to conduct routine searches at the border, but searches of laptops and other digital devices are analogous to more invasive practices such as strip searches, said Feingold, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution [official website]. In his opening statement at a congressional hearing on this issue last week, Feingold said [speech text]:
Ideally, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence would evolve to protect Americans’ privacy in this once unfathomable situation. But if the courts can’t offer that protection, then that responsibility falls to Congress. Customs agents must have the ability to conduct even highly intrusive searches when there is reason to suspect criminal or terrorist activity, but suspicionless searches of Americans’ laptops and similar devices go too far. Congress should not allow this gross violation of privacy.
For the very latest legal news on Paper Chase, click here. For the latest newsworthy legal documents, video, live webcasts and more, visit JURIST’s home page.
Court Dismisses Arar Rendition Suit
July 1, 2008 — lennyesqCIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, IMMIGRATION LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW
Arar v. Ashcroft, No. 06-4216
In an action brought pursuant to the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) and Fifth Amendment by a dual citizen of Syria and Canada alleging he was mistreated by U.S. officials in the United States and removed to Syria with the knowledge or intention that Syrian authorities would interrogate him under torture, grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff satisfied the Article III requirements as to certain claims and made a prima facie showing sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over defendants in New York; 2) plaintiff’s allegations about the events surrounding his removal to Syria did not state a claim against defendants under the TVPA; 3) the circuit court rejects counts which would have required judicial creation of a cause of action pursuant to the Bivens doctrine, with regards to removal-related claims; 4) allegations about the mistreatment he suffered while in the United States did not state a due process claim against defendants; and 5) plaintiff did not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over his request for a declaratory judgment.
Judges Cite Lewis Carroll Poem To Justify Release of Alleged ‘Enemy Combatant’
July 1, 2008 — lennyesqPARHAT V. GATES
[U.S. D.C. Circuit, June 30, 2008] – In the first review of its kind under the Detainee Treatment Act, the government’s determination that a Chinese Guantanamo detainee is an “enemy combatant” was reversed by a federal appeals court. The appellate court reasoned, “Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has ’said it thrice’ does not make an allegation true,” particularly when the source alleging his associations with al Qaeda and the Taliban was the Chinese government.
