Civil rights lawyer Jonathan Feinberg [firm profile] filed a lawsuit Monday on behalf of 11 inmates challenging the "unconstitutional conditions" in which inmates are currently being held at four Philadelphia jails. US District Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled last January that overcrowded Philadelphia jails violate inmates' constitutional rights and therefore require court monitoring. Surrick's ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Feinberg's partner, University of Pennsylvania law professor David Rudovsky, in 2006 and ordered the City to immediately rectify conditions including "the failure to provide beds and bedding, ... material for personal hygiene including soap, warm water, toothpaste, toothbrushes and shower facilities." Suffolk's temporary injunction expired several months ago, and the new lawsuit now seeks class certification on behalf of all Philadelphia inmates.

A similar lawsuit filed by Rudovsky 35 years ago resulted in court oversight of Philadelphia jails from 1971 to 2001.

The 9th Circuit partially revived a lawsuit pitting a Seattle-area school district's non-discrimination policy against students' right to form a Bible club that requires members to declare their Christian faith.

A three-judge panel upheld in August 2007 Kentridge High School's decision to ban Truth, a proposed extracurricular club that required members to profess "a belief in the Bible and in Jesus Christ." These criteria inherently exclude non-Christians in violation of the non-discrimination policy, the judges concluded.

The court withdrew its opinion, replacing it with one that still allowed Kent School District to refuse to recognize discriminatory clubs, but took issue with waivers given to groups such as the Men's Honor Club and the Girl's Honor Club, which exclude members based on gender.

"There is no evidence in the record as to why these groups were allowed apparent waivers from the district's non-discrimination policy," Judge Wallace wrote. The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their claim that the school chose to extend waivers to some student groups, but not theirs, based on religion or the religious content of their speech.

A U.S. appeals court reinstated a class-action suit on Friday against a group of banks that force their credit card customers to use arbitration instead of the courts to settle disputes.

The credit cardholders "alleged that the banks (with other co-conspirators, including American Express (AXP.N) and Wells Fargo (WFC.N)) illegally colluded to force the cardholders to accept mandatory arbitration clauses in their cardholder agreements," according to the ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The cardholders argued that the banks had violated antitrust laws "by refusing to issue cards to individuals who did not agree to arbitration," according to the decision.

The cardholders want the court to stop the banks from compelling arbitration, prevent them from "continuing their alleged collusion" and invalidate the existing mandatory arbitration clauses.

A lower court judge sided with the banks, which include Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Discover Financial Services (DFS.N), Capital One Bank (COF.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and Citigroup Inc (C.N), and dismissed the case, saying the cardholders lacked standing.

The panel of three appellate judges disagreed. "The cardholders have adequately alleged antitrust injuries," it said in its ruling.

Bank of America, Capital One and Discover declined to comment. The other banks did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

"We're quite happy with the decision," said Charles Goodwin, whose Philadelphia law firm represents the credit cardholders. The cardholders are a large class coming from Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and California, he added.

Other banks named in the lawsuit include units of HSBC (HSBA.L) and Washington Mutual Inc (WM.N).

Joe Ridout of the nationwide nonprofit group Consumer Action hailed the ruling, saying: "It's unfair for consumers to have to give up their legal and constitutional rights just to get a credit card."

In a significant victory for drug manufacturers, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the makers of Paxil and Zoloft cannot be sued for failing to warn of a risk of suicide because the Food & Drug Administration has explicitly refused to order such warnings.

Voting 2-1 in a pair of cases where the lower courts issued conflicting rulings, the 3rd Circuit found that such lawsuits must be pre-empted because they directly conflict with action already taken by the FDA.

Writing for the majority, 3rd Circuit Judge Dolores K. Sloviter said the FDA has "actively monitored" the possible risk of suicide from taking the class of antidepressant drugs known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, for two decades, and concluded that the suicide warnings demanded by plaintiffs "are without scientific basis and would therefore be false and misleading."

But Sloviter, who was joined by visiting Judge Jane A. Restani of the U.S. Court of International Trade, emphasized that the ruling was a narrow one.

"Our holding is limited to circumstances in which the FDA has publicly rejected the need for a warning that plaintiffs argue state law requires," Sloviter wrote in Colacicco v. Apotex Inc.

In dissent, 3rd Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro said he would have allowed both cases to go forward.

Former Senate Judiciary Committee counsel Robert Steinbuch sued Jessica Cutler, author of the "Washingtonienne" blog and subsequent book, claiming she invaded his privacy by publishing "in graphic detail the intimate amorous and sexual relationship between Cutler and the Plaintiff," including his alleged predilection for spanking.

Steinbuch also sued Hyperion Books, a division of Disney Publishing Worldwide, which allegedly paid Cutler a $300,000 advance for her book, after her blog became a sensation.

n his federal complaint, Steinbuch says, "At the time of his relationship with Cutler, Plaintiff did not know that Cutler was simultaneously engaged in sexual relationships with another man, let alone with five other men, and let alone that she was prostituting herself to some of them; and Plaintiff did not know that Cutler was recording the details of her relationship with Plaintiff in her blog, and Defendant Cutler described Plaintiff as, among other things, a committee counsel who likes spanking. That blog is the subject of a separate and distinct litigaion.

Steinbuch also claims Cutler profited by "capitalizing on the publicity generated by her blog and her relationship with Plaintiff" by signing a deal with Playboy that included a nude photo spread of her, and the "thinly disguised novel, of the roman a clef genre," in which her relationship with him is "described in graphic detail."

His complaint adds: "Hyperion specifically advertised the book as being in 'a witty, unapologetic voice, the novel's narrator Jackie tells the story of ... the staff counsel whose taste for spanking she "accidentally" leaks to the office.'"

Steinbuch demands $10 million damages for invasion of privacy, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He is represented by Jonathan Rosen of Clearwater, Fla.

The 10th Circuit denied immunity to five police officers in Albuquerque, N.M., who allegedly arrested a University of New Mexico faculty member during an antiwar protest, simply because he was part of a "large basket containing a few bad eggs."

The court ruled 2-1 that John Fogarty may proceed with a lawsuit accusing the officers of targeting him without probable cause and using excessive force to arrest him during a March 2003 demonstration against the U.S. war in Iraq.

The protest began on the UNM campus and spread to city sidewalks and streets, with between 500 and 1,000 demonstrators voicing their opposition to the war.

Fogarty and a friend joined a drum circle that was "play(ing) a really nice samba," Fogarty claimed. But police accused the drummers of inciting the crowd and making it more difficult to clear the streets.

Capt. John Gonzales told officers to "remove the drums," a statement some interpreted as a direct order to arrest the drummers, Fogarty included. The plaintiff said he was already off the street when officers pelted him with an unknown projectile and arrested him.

Officers allegedly took the handcuffed Fogarty near an area with lingering tear gas, causing Fogarty to suffer an acute asthma attack. He also claimed to have torn a tendon in his wrist during the ordeal.

The majority refused to dismiss Fogarty's claims, ruling that he had provided enough evidence to survive summary judgment at this stage.

"The Fourth Amendment plainly requires probable cause to arrest Fogarty as an individual, not a member of a large basket containing a few bad eggs," Judge Lucero wrote. "In other words, that Fogarty was a participant in an antiwar protest where some individuals may have broken the law is not enough to justify his arrest."