d

December 7, 2007

By MARK H. ANDERSON

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In a case involving Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the Supreme Court Friday said it will determine if a disabled employee, under federal disabilities law, gets preference over others for a vacant position even if they aren't the best qualified for the job.

Separately, the justices granted two new appeals dealing with the rights of terrorism suspects. The cases involve the rights of individuals who hold dual U.S. citizenship who are being held by the military and prosecuted for terrorist ties in Iraq. A third appeal deals with questions about the sentencing of an Algerian man convicted of planning a bombing at the Los Angeles International Airport.

The appeal involves Pam Huber, a Wal-Mart warehouse worker in Clarksville, Ark., who injured her right arm and hand on the job. Ms. Huber worked as an order filler, a warehouse floor job pulling products from storage shelves, and requested a transfer to an open position as a router, a desk job.

Wal-Mart gave the position to an employee with more seniority than Ms. Huber, however, and offered her a position at another company facility making significantly less money. She accepted the lesser-paying job and sued. A U.S. District Court ruled in favor of her. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis in May 2007 reversed that holding and ruled for Wal-Mart.

Attorneys for Ms. Huber, in the high-court appeal, said Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rules require employers to favor disabled employees under the Americans With Disabilities Act, a federal law on the rights of the disabled. "The Eighth Circuit not only disregarded the statutory text but also entirely ignored the EEOC's interpretation," the attorneys said, adding the ruling deepened a split on the issue in the federal appeals-court circuits.

Wal-Mart, in court documents, said Ms. Huber's transfer was handled under standard company transfer policies where "vacant positions go to the most qualified applicant" and "Huber's disability had nothing to do with this decision."

Justice Stephen Breyer, who reported holding Wal-Mart stock in his most recent financial disclosure, recused himself from the case, opening the appeal up to a possible 4-4 tie. (Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores)

Court to Review Cases of Americans Detained in Iraq

Justices agreed to intervene in the cases of two naturalized U.S. citizens who want to stop American forces in Baghdad from turning them over to Iraqi authorities.

Mohammad Munaf faces a death sentence after a judge in the Central Criminal Court of Iraq found him guilty of kidnapping Romanian citizens. Mr. Munaf says he is innocent.

In the other case, Shawqi Omar, who holds dual U.S. and Jordanian citizenship and was captured in 2004 in a Baghdad raid targeting associates of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq. He was held by military forces in Iraq and convicted by an Iraqi court.

In the cases of Messrs. Munaf and Omar, different U.S. courts gave conflicting interpretations of a 1948 ruling by the Supreme Court. The lower U.S. courts ruled against Mr. Munaf, but in favor of Mr. Omar.

Mr. Munaf was born in Baghdad and was working as a translator and guide for three Romanian journalists abducted in 2005 in Iraq and held for 55 days. Troops from the multinational force, of which U.S. troops are a part, freed the captives. The multinational troops detained Mr. Munaf because they suspected he was involved in the kidnapping.

Mr. Munaf spent 10 years in the U.S., moving to Bucharest, Romania, in 2001. His wife is Romanian. The dual U.S.-Iraqi citizen has already been sentenced to death by an Iraqi court. Mr. Munaf is in U.S. custody at Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport, where he will remain pending resolution of his appeal in the Iraqi courts.

A federal court in Washington D.C., rejected a request by Mr. Munaf's sister seeking to bar his transfer to the Iraqis. The federal judge said Mr. Munaf isn't in the custody of the U.S., but is instead in the hands of coalition troops, of which U.S. forces are a part. The coalition troops, the federal court said, are answerable to the United Nations and its member countries. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the ruling.

The U.S. courts in Mr. Munaf's case relied on a 1948 Supreme Court decision in which Japanese citizens unsuccessfully sought to challenge their sentences by a military tribunal in Japan. The justices said the tribunal's authority came from Allied forces and not the U.S.

The Supreme Court said federal courts had no jurisdiction because the military panel was not a U.S. tribunal, thought it had been set up by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur, the Supreme Court ruled, did so while acting as head of the Allied forces.

In the case of Mr. Omar, his lawyers say he traveled to Iraq with his 10-year-old son after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 seeking contract work in reconstruction.

In the custody of the U.S. military ever since the raid, Mr. Omar's wife got a federal judge in Washington to block the multinational force from turning him over to Iraqi authorities for prosecution. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the U.S.'s assertion that the 1948 Supreme Court ruling meant that federal courts had no authority to decide Mr. Omar's case. The appeals court said that Mr. Omar, unlike the Japanese nationals in the 1948 Supreme Court case, has not been charged with a crime much less convicted of one and that he has remained in the control of U.S. forces. (Munaf v. Geren and Secretary of the Army v. Omar)

Justices to Review Case of Millennium Bomber

The Supreme Court agreed to consider reinstating part of the conviction of would-be millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam, a case the government says will greatly affect terrorism prosecutions.

Mr. Ressam, an Algerian national, was sentenced to 22 years in prison in 2005 after being convicted on nine counts for plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport around Jan. 1, 2000. Customs agents in Port Angeles caught him with explosives in the trunk of his rental car when he drove off a ferry from British Columbia in December 1999.

The San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out one count, in which Mr. Ressam was convicted of carrying explosives during the commission of another serious crime. The court said the law required prosecutors to show the explosives were carried "in relation to" the felony, which in this case was lying on a Customs form.

The government argued it would be much harder to prosecute terrorists if that interpretation of the law is allowed to stand. Other appeals courts have said that nothing in the provision says the explosives "must have been carried "in relation to" the underlying felony," U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement said in asking the high court to hear the case. Arguments probably will take place in March.

The appeals court sent the case back to a lower court to issue a new sentence, and also asked the judge to explain the rationale behind the 22-year term, which prosecutors had challenged as too lenient. That move now will await a Supreme Court ruling. (U.S. v. Ressam)

In other court action, justices agreed to clarify when asset transfers in corporate bankruptcy transactions are exempt from state transfer taxes. The appeal before the court involves the sale of Piccadilly Cafeterias Inc., which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2003. At issue in the case is whether the sale of Piccadilly's assets qualified for a bankruptcy law exemption, which was granted to an auction sale by a federal bankruptcy court. Florida tax officials objected and have sought $32,200 in transfer taxes on an $80 million bankruptcy auction sale. Numerous states filed a brief at the Supreme Court urging the justices to resolve questions over the exemption. (Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias Inc.)

--The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Write to Mark H. Anderson at mark.anderson@dowjones.com