The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Monday halted an effort to grant "personhood" rights to human embryos, saying the measure is unconstitutional.

The state's highest court ruled unanimously that a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would define a fertilized human egg as a person violates a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Pennsylvania case and "is clearly unconstitutional." Supporters of the personhood amendment are trying to gather enough signatures to put it before Oklahoma voters on the November ballot.

Opponents contend the measure would ban abortions without exception and interfere with a woman's right to use certain forms of contraception and medical procedures, such as in vitro fertilization.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed a protest with the state Supreme Court on behalf of several Oklahoma doctors and residents. They asked the court to stop the group Personhood Oklahoma from gathering signatures.

The nine-member court determined the initiative petition "is void on its face" and struck it down.

"The only course available to this court is to follow what the United States Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the United States Constitution, has decreed," the court said.

The Livingston Parish Council is hiring private lawyers to defend the parish against a $52 million lawsuit filed by an Alabama company that spearheaded clean-up efforts after Hurricane Gustav struck in 2008.

The Advocate reports the council retained the McGlinchey, Stafford PLLC law firm to begin a preliminary review of the case.

After Gustav struck in September 2008, IED Inc. was placed in charge of clearing storm debris from Livingston Parish roads and waterways.

The council expected the Federal Emergency Management Agency to cover the costs. But after FEMA refused to pay about $52 million billed for the work, IED filed a lawsuit against the parish.

www.theadvocate.com

A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked two more sections of Alabama's tough new law targeting illegal immigration pending the outcome of lawsuits that seek to overturn the law entirely.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order temporarily halting a section that says courts can't enforce contracts involving illegal immigrants and another that makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to do business with the state.

The law adopted last year was challenged by both the federal government and a coalition of activist groups. A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit heard arguments last week but said it won't rule on the overall case until the U.S. Supreme Court decides a federal challenge to a similar law in Arizona. The appeals court is also weighing Georgia's law.

Lawyers in the Alabama case had asked the court to at least temporarily stop the two sections and others, claiming they were causing harm to people in the state.

"We are very pleased that the Eleventh Circuit understood the harms these provisions were causing in Alabama, and saw fit to enjoin them," said the Southern Poverty Law Center's Sam Brooke, who argued before the panel last week. "This is a great day for the residents of our state."

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said he strongly disagrees with the court's decision.

The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant Thursday for Sudan's defense minister, the third senior regime official sought by the court for alleged involvement in atrocities in Darfur.

The court announced it wants Abdelrahim Mohamed Hussein arrested on a warrant containing seven counts of crimes against humanity and six war crimes including murder, persecution, rape and torture. The charges cover 41 different incidents, the court said.

Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo asked judges for the warrant in December, saying Hussein is among those who "bear greatest criminal responsibility" for atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region from August 2003 to March 2004.

Sudan does not recognize the court and refuses to hand over suspects including President Omar al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide in Darfur. His government denounced Moreno-Ocampo's request for an arrest warrant for Hussein in December.

At the time covered by the charges, Hussein was interior minister and the Sudan government's special representative in Darfur.

A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a novel and controversial California law that allowed descendants of 1.5 million Armenians who perished in Turkey nearly a century ago to file claims against life insurance companies accused of reneging on policies.

The move came when a specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously tossed out a class action lawsuit filed against Munich Re after two of its subsidiaries refused to pay claims.

The ruling, written by Judge Susan Graber, said the California law trampled on U.S. foreign policy — the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.

The California Legislature labeled the Armenian deaths as genocide, a term the Turkish government vehemently argued was wrongly applied during a time of civil unrest in the country.

The court noted the issue is so fraught with politics that President Obama studiously avoided using the word genocide during a commemorative speech in April 2010 noting the Armenian deaths.

The tortured legal saga began in 2000 when the California Legislature passed a law enabling Armenian heirs to file claims with insurance companies for policies sold around the turn of the 20th century. It gave the heirs until 2010 to file lawsuits over unpaid insurance benefits.

The Mississippi Supreme Court said Wednesday it will take up the legal challenge to the pardons ex-Gov. Haley Barbour gave out in his last days in office.

State Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, wants to invalidate dozens of the 198 pardons that Barbour, a Republican, handed out before his second four-year term ended Jan. 10. Ten of the people were still incarcerated when they received reprieves.

Only about two dozen of the people pardoned followed the Mississippi Constitution's requirement to publish a notice about their reprieves in their local newspapers for 30 days, said Hood, who wants the others invalidated. Barbour has said the pardons are valid and that he gave them because he's a Christian and believes in second chances.

Most of the people who could lose their pardons already served their sentences and have been out of prison for years. Some of them were convicted of comparatively minor crimes as far back as the 1960s and 1970s and have never been in trouble again.

Five of the pardoned are being held on a temporary restraining order issued by Hinds County Circuit Judge Tomie Green. The Supreme Court extended that order until it can rule on the matter. It set a hearing for Feb. 9 and said it would try to rule quickly.