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.

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."

US District Judge Joan A. Lenard Wednesday declared a second mistrial in a terrorism prosecution of six men charged with conspiring to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI headquarters in Miami after the jury was unable to reach a verdict after 13 days of deliberations. In December 2007 Lenard declared an initial mistrial when the jury was deadlocked after nine days of deliberations. A seventh man was acquitted in that proceeding.

The seven were indicted last year on charges of conspiring to provide material support to al Qaeda; conspiring to provide material support, training, and resources to terrorists; conspiring to maliciously damage and destroy by means of an explosive; and conspiring to levy war against the government of the United States. The indictment alleged that ringleader Narseal Batiste recruited the six other defendants to "organize and train for a mission to wage war against the United States government," and that they pledged an oath to al Qaeda in an attempt to secure financial and logistical backing. Lawyers for some of the men said that their clients were entrapped by an FBI informant posing as an al Qaeda operative. If the men had been convicted, they would have faced up to 70 years in prison.

The parents of a Michigan teenager who killed herself while on the antidepressant Paxil cannot sue the drug's manufacturer because a state law grants immunity to the maker of any drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Maloney of the Western District of Michigan said FDA approval of Paxil use by adults was enough to shield manufacturer SmithKline Beecham Corp., even though the agency never approved the drug's use by teens.

He therefore dismissed Nadine White and David B. McCullough's lawsuit against SKB over their 16-year-old daughter Moriah's 2001 suicide after taking Paxil for three months.

Michigan is the only state with a law providing drugmakers immunity from state tort suits if the FDA has certified their products as safe and effective. The only exceptions to the statute are for fraud on the FDA or bribery of an agency official.

In this case, White and McCullough filed a negligence and strict-liability suit against SKB in a Pennsylvania federal court because the company is located in that state.

The drugmaker won a change of venue to the Western District of Michigan because the plaintiffs are residents of that state. It then filed a motion to dismiss.

In their opposition to the motion the plaintiffs argued that their suit is a failure-to-warn case because SKB never warned doctors not to prescribe Paxil to teens or children and, in fact, conducted a secret campaign to promote such "off-label" use.

Moreover, since the company never applied to the FDA for marketing approval to prescribe the drug to teens and children, it cannot argue that it has immunity under the Michigan statute, they said.

Judge Maloney rejected that argument, saying the Michigan Legislature provided immunity to drug manufacturers for FDA-approved products and that it is uncontested that Paxil was approved by the agency for use in adults.

"The statute does not limit the protection to situations when the drug is used for approved purposes," he said. "Should the Legislature wish to limit the protection available to "off-label" uses of the drug, it may do so."