India Considers Opening Its Doors to U.K. Law Firms.

For law firms with global ambitions, India has long held promise as a potentially growing and lucrative market for legal services. Many firms have developed robust India practices, representing Western companies doing business in the country or Indian companies in their business dealings abroad.
But one sizable roadblock stands in the way of U.S. and U.K. firms: Indian law restricts foreign firms from opening offices in the country.
Indian attorneys have even sued U.S. and U.K. firms in the past, contending that the firms have violated Indian trade regulations by practicing law in India.
There are signs, however, that India is considering opening its doors at least partially to foreign firms.
India’s Law Minister Salman Khurshid and the U.K.’s Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke recently agreed to begin work on an arrangement in which India would allow entry to U.K. law firms and the U.K., in turn, would open its doors to Indian firms, the Hindustan Times reports. (It’s unclear whether U.S. firms would be invited to the party.)
“We understand the UK firms want to open offices in India for non-litigation purposes — mainly drafting of business contracts, deeds, agreements and other similar works,” said Ashok Parija, the chairman of the Indian body that regulates the legal profession. “We will negotiate with our UK counterparts to work out a principle of reciprocity, which will benefit both sides.”
Here’s another article on the development from the Economic Times, which reports that Khurshid recently assured the UK’s Clarke that the Indian government would move quickly to address U.K. firms’ desires to open offices in the country.
Still, the Economic Times reports, many Indian lawyers fear the competitive threat posed by foreign firms and remain opposed to lowering India’s barriers to entry.

Judge Partially Rejects Challenge to Alabama Immigration Law.

Breaking: A federal judge today partially rejected the federal government’s request to block Alabama’s strict new immigration law.
At issue is a law considered the nation’s toughest on illegal immigrants. It makes it a crime in Alabama for an illegal resident to apply for a job; it requires public schools to check the immigration status of students, and it authorizes state police in certain instances to verify the immigration status of people detained or arrested.
The Justice Department filed suit, claiming the law is unconstitutional on the grounds it allegedly usurps federal authority over immigration.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn of Alabama upheld key sections of the Alabama law concluding that they are not preempted by federal law.
Blackburn let stand the provisions authorizing local police to inquire about detainees’ immigration status and requiring public schools to verify students’ immigration status. (Click here to read the judge’s ruling.)
But the judge did enjoin other sections of the law, ruling that “there is a substantial likelihood” that the Justice Department can establish that the sections are preempted by federal law.
Blackburn, for example, blocked regulations that make it a crime for illegal residents to apply for a job and that make it unlawful for people to “conceal, harbor or shield” an illegal resident.
The Law Blog has sought comment from the Department of Justice and Alabama Governor’s Office.
Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, which has also challenged the Alabama law in court, called today’s ruling a mixed bag.  The judge let stand sections of the Alabama law “that are of serious concern, and the enforcement of those sections would lead to widespread civil rights violations,” Jadwat said. “It is positive that she has enjoined some of the sections” of the law.
(Here’s a recent WSJ article on the case and click here for Law Blog background on the dispute)
Update: A Justice Department spokesperson said that DOJ is reviewing the ruling to determine its next steps. “We will continue to evaluate state immigration-related laws and will not hesitate to bring suit if, in fact, a state creates its own immigration policy or enforces state laws in a manner that interferes with federal immigration law,” the spokesperson said.
Alabama governor Robert Bentley has released a statement calling the judge’s ruling a “victory for Alabama.”
“If the federal government had done its job by enforcing its own immigration laws, there would be no need for Alabama – or other states – to pass a law such as this.  Unfortunately, they have failed to do their job,” the governor said.
“The judge temporarily enjoined four parts of the law, but this fight is just beginning. I am optimistic that this law will be completely upheld, and I remain committed to seeing this law fully implemented.  I will continue to fight at every turn to defend this law against any and all challenges.”

Female Driver Sentenced to Lashing.

Clearly, the Saudi Arabian ban on women drivers that we mentioned yesterday is still very much in force.
Less than 48 hours after Saudi King Abdullah announced that women would be able to vote in local elections, a court in Jeddah sentenced a woman to 10 lashes for allegedly defying the Kingdom’s ban on female drivers, according to this item in WSJ’s “Driver’s Seat” blog.
Two other women, who are part of a new campaign called “My Right2Dignity Initiative”, were also summoned for questioning and will stand trial, joining a number of other women currently on trial for driving, according to the blog report by Dow Jones reporter Summer Said.
“What is happening to our women today is unfortunate and violates the rule of law and legal rights and is contrary to the reformist direction that was launched by the Custodian of the two holy mosques (the Saudi king),” My Right2Dignity Initiative said in a statement.
“Belatedly allowing women to vote in council elections is all well and good, but if they are still going to face being flogged for trying to exercise their right to freedom of movement then the King’s much-trumpeted ‘reforms’ actually amount to very little,” added Philip Luther, of Amnesty International.

Supreme Court Agrees to Tackle Major Immigration Topic

The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to hear two cases that deal with the extent to which the U.S. can deport illegal immigrants whose parents are residents of the U.S.
Immigrants who have been in the country consecutively for seven years are authorized by law to seek to block their deportation. The question is whether a parent’s length of residency can be imputed to their children who are brought to the country at a young age.
The two cases, which have been consolidated into a single appeal, have echoes of a topic heavily debated among Republican presidential contenders: whether states should bestow leniency on children who came to the country illegally through no fault of their own.
(Here’s an LA Times article previewing the Supreme Court cases and one from the New York Times. Also click here and here for more background on the cases from SCOTUSblog)
Some courts have blocked deportation orders for illegal immigrants because their parents had gained permanent-residence status and lived in the United States for more than seven years, the LA Times reports, adding that the 9th Circuit has held that a “parent’s status as a lawful permanent resident is imputed” to the “children residing with that parent.”
But the Obama Administration takes the view that the 9th Circuit wrongly decided the case and that immigrants cannot rely on a parent’s residency status as grounds for blocking deportation, according to the L.A. Times.
Lawyers for the two men facing deportation in the Supreme Court cases at issue have cited Congressional policy that favors keeping families intact, the New York Times reports.

Health Overhaul Heads to Justices

By BRENT KENDALL And LAURA MECKLER

The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to decide the fate of its health-care overhaul, setting the stage for arguments at the high court and a probable ruling in the thick of the 2012 presidential campaign.

The administration's move puts an end to months of speculation about its strategy in the case. Now both sides want the Supreme Court to deliver a speedy decision, one that could affect President Barack Obama's re-election prospects.
Mr. Obama has described the law he signed in March 2010 as one of his top achievements, but it has drawn, at best, mixed results in opinion polls, and all of his potential Republican rivals have pledged to repeal it. If the Supreme Court rules by June 2012, as now appears likely, it would put health care back in the spotlight as the parties gear up for their conventions.
Some Republicans said that might help their cause, regardless of how the Supreme Court decides.

"Having this particular issue emerge right in the middle of the presidential campaign draws attention back to the fact that, while the economy was tanking, he was focusing on health care," said David Winston, a Republican pollster.
The White House said it expects to be vindicated at the Supreme Court, and compared the law to landmarks such as the Civil Rights Act that survived constitutional challenges and won widespread popular acceptance.
"We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. We are confident the Supreme Court will agree," said White House adviser Stephanie Cutter.
While the likely mid-campaign timing of the decision may not be ideal for the White House, any attempt to push the ruling back into 2013 would have been risky, too. Opponents of the law were already calling for a quick Supreme Court ruling, so a slow-walking strategy would have made the administration look less confident—and the Supreme Court might have chosen to take the case quickly anyway.
A decision before the 2012 presidential election also would foreclose any possibility of a Republican president declining to defend the health-care law in court.
Democrats familiar with White House thinking said Wednesday that officials concluded this case was likely to wind up before the high court in 2012 regardless, and that delaying it could push the proceedings even closer to Election Day.

"They want to get a decision as removed from the heat of politics as possible," said one person close to the White House.
This person said that while the White House is confident of winning, it is preparing for the possibility that the Supreme Court could strike down parts of the law and leave other parts intact. In that case, the Obama administration would have control over how the surviving parts are implemented.
So far, two of three federal appeals courts ruling on the law have found in the administration's favor. A third, the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, ruled that the law's "individual mandate"—the requirement for most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty—was unconstitutional, but said the rest of the law could stand. A fourth court, in the District of Columbia, heard arguments this month.
In Wednesday's filings to the Supreme Court, both sides appealed the 11th Circuit's ruling. The Obama administration asked the high court to uphold the individual mandate along with the rest of the law, while the law's opponents said the whole law, not just the mandate, should be struck down.
The two sides agreed on one point, saying a speedy decision is desirable.
"Until this court decides the extent to which the [law] survives, the entire nation will remain mired in doubt, which imposes an enormous drag on the economy," said the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the plaintiffs in the 11th Circuit case.
"It's important to get a decision sooner rather than later," said an official at the Justice Department, which filed its appeal more than a month before it was due. An early ruling would allow the federal government to "get on with the business of implementing the law," while allowing states, businesses and individuals time to plan, the official said.
The Supreme Court isn't required to hear the case, but the request by both sides for a ruling, as well as the divided opinions by lower courts, will likely impel it to take the case in its current term, lawyers said.
Many of the law's provisions, including state-based exchanges where consumers could comparison-shop for coverage, are scheduled to take effect in 2014.

Mr. Obama's supporters hope the Supreme Court will vindicate the law, giving the president a major boost heading into the fall campaign. But that could also help energize Republicans, because the only way to overturn the law at that point would be to elect a Republican president and Congress to repeal it.
Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who co-directs the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll with Democrat Peter Hart, said any attention paid to health care is risky for Mr. Obama, particularly because those strongly opposed to the law outnumber those strongly in favor. "The public discussion has not yet ever gone well for the president or the Democrats," Mr. McInturff said.
Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress, who worked on health care early in the Obama administration, said the campaign is more likely to focus on the economy than health care, particularly if former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who championed the Massachusetts health law that was a model for the Obama version, is the Republican candidate. "Republicans don't want to talk about this," she said. "If they did, they would be talking about it every day."
The 11th Circuit case is the largest challenge and is led by Republican attorneys general and governors in 26 states. Challengers assert that the Affordable Care Act exceeds Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce by compelling individuals to undertake a commercial activity—purchasing health coverage—or pay a penalty.
The Justice Department's brief relies heavily on an opinion by a conservative judge, Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, who earlier this year wrote a concurring opinion upholding the insurance mandate as a reasonable way for Congress to exercise its authority over the insurance and health-care markets.
—Janet Hook and Jess Bravin contributed to this article.