Drug-maker won't allow Propofol to be used for executions

Drug manufacturer Fresenius Kabi, USA, a German company with U.S. offices based in Schaumburg, Ill., and, up till now the only domestic supplier of Propofol, the anesthetic Missouri and a number of other states had been looking at as an alternative drug for use in executions, announced yesterday that it would not sell the drug for use in executions.


An Associated Press article this morning recounted that "most of the 33 states still having the death penalty have long used sodium thiopental as the first of a three-drug combination administered during lethal injections, but that became unavailable when its European supplier acknowledged pressure from death penalty opponents and stopped selling it for executions. Supplies mostly ran out or expired, forcing states to consider alternatives, with most states retaining the three-drug method but turning to pentobarbital, a barbiturate used to treat anxiety and convulsive disorders such as epilepsy, as a replacement for sodium thiopental. Now pentobarbital supplies also have shrunk after its manufacturer said it would try to prevent its use in executions."

The Associated Press also said neither the Missouri Attorney General's office nor Department of Corrections were available for comment on the news with it having been announced last summer that it was adopting Propofol into its lethal injection protocol. There are also several suits challenging Missouri’s decision to use Propofol. (See earlier posting)

U.S. 5th. Circuit reverses on Katrina ruling

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that sided with plaintiffs earlier this year, withdrew that decision, throwing out a landmark ruling that the Army Corps of Engineers was liable for billions of dollars in Hurricane Katrina flood damage that property owners blamed on the corps' maintenance of a New Orleans shipping channel, and, reversing itself, replaced that holding with a new ruling in the federal government's favor, yesterday. (Here)

USAToday, this morning, looked at the 5th. Circuit's change of mind holding that "the corps is completely insulated from liability by a provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act called the "discretionary-function exception."

The 5th. Circuit, in re-examining the Flood Control Act of 1928 (“FCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 702 and discretionary-function exception (“DFE”) to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), explained:

"Our interpretation of Section 702c and the caselaw, however, provides a rule slightly different from the district court's. Instead of its strictly categorical approach, which would have immunity attach only where a flood was caused b a project that had the purpose of flood control, we recognize immunity for any flood-control activity engaged in by the government, even in the context of a project that was not primarily or substantially related to flood control. Thus, for example, if the government had attempted foreshore protection inside the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (“MRGO”), [[a shipping channel between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico, and levees alongside the channel and around the city (explanatory insertion ours)]] but that protection (whether by design or negligence) caused or exacerbated flood damage, the district court’s rule would grant the Corps no immunity, because MRGO was not a flood-control project. Our rule, by contrast, attaches immunity if the foreshore protection had flood control as its purpose— that is, if installing and maintaining foreshore protection was a flood-control activity regardless of the nature of MRGO, the overall project."

Mexico reviewing Alabama immigration law under international treaty

Jurist Paper Chase last week had a post in which it passed on that "The Mexican government had announced that it was reviewing a complaint [complaint, PDF] by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) that Alabama's immigration law [HB 56, PDF] violates the North American Fair Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), specifically alleging that Alabama's immigration law is violating the protections granted to migrant workers under the treaty, arguing it is discriminatory and abusive towards all workers, violates both international human rights standards and labor standards."


Jurist further recounted that "a three-judge Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld several provisions of the law in August, including one allowing police officers to check the immigration status of persons suspected of a crime, but rejected provisions making it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or solicit work, imposing criminal penalties on persons who rent property to illegal immigrants and requiring state officials to check the immigration status of children in public schools. Alabama state officials petitioned the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month to reconsider a ruling partially striking down the state's immigration law."