In a Tuesday ruling, Judge James Robertson of the US District Court for the District of Columbia declared that "the Treasury Department’s failure to design and issue paper currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired individuals violates section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act." Section 504 provides that no disabled person shall be "subjected to discrimination . . . under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency." In support of its decision, the court noted that over half of all countries that print their currency vary its size or texture to aid the blind. The court rejected the government's arguments that the change would be cost prohibitive, increase counterfeiting, and disrupt international recognition of US currency.

Robertson wrote:

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they lack meaningful access to US currency. They have put forth several potential accommodations that are reasonable on their face. The government has not sustained its burden of showing that any of them would be unduly burdensome to implement... I will grant plaintiffs’ prayer for a declaratory judgment.

The American Council of the Blind filed the action four years ago. Under 28 USC s.1292(b), the government has ten days to appeal the ruling.

The United States strongly protested South Korea’s decision not to accept the first shipment of its beef since it lifted a three-year import ban.

Korea's Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery told The Korea Times that it was not an official protest and declined to comment.

In Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns was quoted as saying, ``You can’t trade under these circumstances.’’

Johanns said the Korean government has applied a standard the U.S. did not agree to. ``It was a standard that they invented along the way.

They found a small piece of cartilage and rejected the whole shipment, notwithstanding the fact that this is not a threat to anyone.’’

He added that he hopes the U.S. Department of Agriculture can solve the situation and U.S. beef producers can get beef moving into Korea, which the two countries had agreed upon.

Last week the Korean government said it would not allow the first batch of beef shipped from the United States to be sold in the country after a bone fragment was detected in a package.

The detection of a bone fragment in the beef, which arrived at Incheon International Airport last month, is expected to trigger fresh concerns about the safety of U.S. beef.

The U.S. shipped 8.9 tons of beef in about 720 separate packages, the first shipment since the lifting of a three-year ban on U.S. beef following a case of mad cow disease there.

At a news briefing, the National Veterinary Research & Quarantine Service (NVRQS) said it has asked the government to destroy the beef or send it back to the U.S.

A ranking NVRQS official said the U.S. meat processing center that shipped the beef with a bone fragment will be barred from exporting to South Korea, reducing the number of export eligible plants from 36 to 35.

Last Thursday another shipment of U.S. beef, totaling 3.6 tons, arrived in Korea by airfreight.

WASHINGTON – Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) has agreed to pay the United States $8 million to settle allegations of overcharging and other procurement irregularities regarding the Houston-based company’s billings to the Army under a contract for logistical support of military operations in the Balkans during 1999 and 2000, the Justice Department announced today. The settlement resolves allegations under the False Claims Act that concerned various purchase orders awarded to 10 different foreign KBR subcontractors or vendors.

Part of the allegations concerned double-billing or delivery of non-comforming products by aggregate suppliers for use in the construction of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. The other matters generally involved inflation of prices for various goods resulting from the alleged failure to ensure competitive procurements.

“The Department of Justice remains committed to vigorously pursuing allegations of procurement abuses affecting the military,” said Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General for the Department’s Civil Division.

The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service participated in the investigation of this matter.

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice today reached a settlement in a case against Beaulah Stevens alleging housing discrimination on the basis of race or color in renting properties owned and managed by the defendant in Saraland, Ala.

The government’s complaint alleged that the defendant violated the federal Fair Housing Act when she discriminated against the victim, Michele Jones, upon learning that her child is biracial and that she associated with African Americans. The complaint also alleged that two fair housing tests conducted by the Mobile Fair Housing Center (now known as the Center for Fair Housing, Inc. of Mobile, Ala.) showed that the defendant treated white testers who inquired about the availability of units for rent more favorably than African American testers.

“The intent of the Fair Housing Act is to provide all Americans equal access to housing unencumbered by the pernicious obstacle of racial discrimination,” said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “This type of racial discrimination is against the law and will not be tolerated.”

“This case shows that the Department of Justice and this office believe that housing discrimination is a serious violation of the law,” said Deborah J. Rhodes, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. “We will enforce federal laws against racial discrimination.” The case was initiated when Ms. Jones filed a fair housing complaint on behalf of herself and her daughter with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). After investigating the matter, HUD issued a charge of discrimination, and the matter was referred to the Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in May 2005.

“HUD commends the Department of Justice's ongoing commitment to enforcing this nation's fair housing laws,” said Kim Kendrick, HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “No one should be denied housing because of his or her race or because of the race of any member of that household. This settlement was not just a victory for this mother and daughter, but it was a greater victory for the principles of justice and equality.”

The settlement, which must be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, resolves the government’s case as well as the related claims of Ms. Jones and Angela Macon, a neighbor of Ms. Jones, both of whom intervened in the government’s lawsuit. Under the settlement, the defendant has agreed to pay more than $40,000 in damages and penalties; to post a nondiscriminatory rental policy; to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act; and to submit periodic reports to the Justice Department.

Fighting illegal housing discrimination is a top priority of the Justice Department. In February 2006, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales announced Operation Home Sweet Home, a concentrated initiative to expose and eliminate housing discrimination in America. This initiative was inspired by the plight of displaced victims of Hurricane Katrina who were suddenly forced to find new places to live. Operation Home Sweet Home actively targets housing discrimination all over the country.

A North Carolina state court judge Monday ruled that a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the families of four US contractors killed in Iraq against Blackwater Security Consulting could move forward after being stayed for nearly two years. The company has argued that the case should be litigated in federal court, but the US District Court hearing the dispute remanded the case to state court. That decision was upheld  by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and Blackwater's lawyers are preparing to ask the US Supreme Court to consider the case.

In October, Chief Justice John Roberts refused to issue a stay pending appeal. Lawyers for Blackwater have argued that cases against the contractor should be dismissed because the security firm is an extension of the military. An undersecretary of the US Army denied any legitimate ties between Blackwater and the military in her testimony in a congressional hearing two months ago

The lawsuit, filed in January 2005, alleges that Blackwater did not provide the four men with the proper weaponry or personnel to defend themselves when they encountered a group of insurgents who attacked their supply convoy in March 2004. The videotaped ambush showed the four men being burned and tortured.