a continuous session of Congress, following the date on which the plan is submitted to Congress. Additional contents of a reorganization plan are permitted by federal law. A reorganization plan submitted by the president 1. may change, in such cases as the president considers necessary, the name of an agency affected by a reorganization and the title of its head and shall designate the name of an agency resulting from a reorganization and the title of its head; 2. may provide for the appointment and pay of the head and one or more officers of any agency (including an agency resulting from a consolidation or other type of reorgani- zation), if the president finds and, in the message transmitting the plan, declares that by reason of a reorganization made by the plan, the provisions are necessary; 3. shall provide for the transfer or other disposition of the records, property, and personnel affected by a reorganization; 4. shall provide for the transfer of such unexpended balances of appropriations, and of other funds, available for use in connec- tion with a function or agency affected by a reorganization, as the president considers necessary by reason of the reorganization for use in connection with the functions affected by the reorganization, or for the use of the agency that shall have the functions after the reorganization plan is effective; and 5. shall provide for terminating the affairs of an abolished agency. A reorganization plan can neither provide for nor have the effect of 1. creating a new executive department, abol- ishing or transferring an executive depart- ment or independent regulatory agency, or all the functions thereof, or consolidating two or more executive departments or two or more independent regulatory agencies, or all the functions thereof; 2. continuing an agency beyond the period authorized by law for its existence or beyond the time when it would have terminated if the reorganization had not been made; 3. continuing a function beyond the period authorized by law for its exercise or beyond thetimewhenitwouldhaveterminatedif the reorganization had not been made; 4. authorizing an agency to exercise a func- tion that is not expressly authorized by A sample reorganization plan (continued). ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. Reorganization Plan • Name, as soon as may be possible, officers to fill the following offices created by the Act: (1) Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis (2) Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection (3) Privacy Officer (4) Director of the Secret Service (5) Chief Information Officer (6) Chief Human Capital Officer (7) Chief Financial Officer (8) Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (9) Director of Shared Services (10) Citizenship and Immigration Ombudsman (11) Director of the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency • Establish, within the Office of the Secretary, the Office for State and Local Government Coordination, the Office of International Affairs, and the Office of National Capital Region Coordination. • Establish the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Acceleration Fund for Research and Development of Homeland Security Technologies. • Establish within the Directorate of Science and Technology the Office for National Laboratories. • Establish the Bureau of Border Security, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Director of Shared Services. • Establish the Transportation Security Oversight Board with the Secretary of Homeland Security as its Chair. By September 30, 2003: • Complete any incidental transfers, pursuant to Section 1516 of the Act, of personnel, assets, and liabilities held, used, arising from, available, or to be made available, in connection with the functions transferred by the Act. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 328 REORGANIZATION PLAN law at the time the plan is transmitted to Congress; 5. increasing the term of an office beyond that provided by law for the office; or 6. dealing with more than one logically consistent subject matter. A reorganization plan ordinarily is effective at the conclusion of the first period of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date on which the plan is transmitted to it, unless, between the transmittal date and the end of the 60-day period, either house passes a resolution declaring that the house does not favor the reorganization plan . A reorgani- zation plan can prescribe that its provisions will be effective at a time later than the date on which the plan otherwise would be effective. In addition, if both houses of Congress have defeated a resolution of disapproval, the provi- sions can be effective at a time earlier than the expiration of the 60-day period. An effective reorganization plan is published in the statutes at large, in the same volume as the public laws, and in the FEDERAL REGISTER.Ifa statute is enacted, an action taken, a regulation promulgated by an agency, or a function affected by a reorganization before the effective date of the reorganization, it has, except to the extent rescinded, modified, superseded, or made inap- plicable by or under authority of law, or by the abolition of a function, the same effect as if the reorganization had not been made. If, however, the statute, regulation, or other action has vested the functions in the agency from which it is removed under the reorganization plan, the function, insofar as it is to be exercised after the plan becomes effective, is regarded as vested in the agency under which the function is placed by the plan. A suit, action, or other proceeding lawfully instituted by or against the head of an agency or other officer of the United States, in his official capacity, or in relation to the performance of his official duties, does not abate because a reorga- nization plan becomes effective. If a motion, an application for a court order, or a supplemental petition showing a necessity for a survival of the suit, action, or proceeding is filed at any time within 12 months after the reorganization plan takes effect, the court may allow the suit, action, or proceeding to be maintained by or against the successor of the head or officer under the reorganization achieved by the plan or, if there is no successor, against such agency or officer as the president designates. The appropriations or portions thereof unex- pended because of the operation of the reorgani- zation plan revert to the TREASURY DEPARTMENT. RESOURCES Bhandari, Jaqdeep S., and Lawrence A. Weiss, eds. 1996. Corporate Bankruptcy: Economic and Legal Perspectives. Boston: Cambridge. Gilmour, Robert S., and Alexis A. Halley. 1994. Who Makes Public Policy?: The Struggle between Congress and the Executive. New York: Seven Bridges. Roe, Mark J. 2007. Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorg- anization: Legal and Financial Materials. Westbury, NY: Foundation. CROSS REFERENCES Administra tive Agency; Administrative Law and Procedure; Executive Branch. REPARABLE INJURY A TORT, or civil wrong, that can be compensated through the payment of pecuniary damages, as distinguished from irreparable injury or harm that is not co mpensable through the payment of money. REPARATION Compensation for an injury; redress for a wrong inflicted. The losing countries in a war often must pay damages to the victors for the economic harm that the losing countries inflicted during wartime. These damages are commonly called “military reparations.” The term reparation may also be applied to other situations where one party must pay for damages inflicted upon another party. In the twentieth century, military repara- tions have been extracted from Germany twice. After Germany’s defeat in WORLD WAR I, the Allies conducted a peace conference in Paris, at which they drafted the TREATY OF VERSAILLES (225 Consol. T. S. 188 [June 28, 1919]) which was extremely harsh toward Germany. Germany was compelled to deliver to the Allies one- eighth of its livestock and provide ships, railroad cars, locomotives, and other materials to replace those it had destroyed during the war. Germany also had to provide France with large quantities of coal as reparations. The treaty required Germany to pay large yearly sums of money to the Allies, but it did not set the total amount due. A reparations commission, which was created to determine GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION REPARATION 329 the amount, decided in 1921 to set total cash reparations at about $33 billion. Efforts to collect the reparations failed, primarily because the German economy was in dire straits in the 1920s. U.S. financier Charles G. Dawes presided over a committee of experts to address this problem. In 1924 the Allies and Germany adopted the Dawes Plan, which reorganized the German national bank, placed stringent economic controls on Germany, and provided for loans to Germany, all to improve the German economy so that the country could make reparations. In 1929 Germany renegotiated its reparations requirements with the Allies. A committee headed by U.S. representative OWEN D . YOUNG reduced the amount Germany owed and ended foreign controls over the German economy. Even this reduced amount of repara- tions was not paid. When ADOLF HI TLER came to power in 1933 he repudiated the Treaty of Versailles and the reparations provisions. In the twentieth century, the term reparation has come to imply fault. However, in some circumstances, nations may pay for harm inflicted by their armed forces without admit- ting fault or legal liability, by offering compen- sation ex gratia, which is Latin for “out of grace.” Such payments are usually made for humanitarian or political reasons. For example , the United States paid Switzerland $4 million for the accidental bombing of the town of Schaffhausen during WORLD WAR II and paid Japan $2 million in the mid-1950s after an atomic bomb test that the United States conducted in the Pacific showered a Japanese fishing boat and its crew with radiation. Since the late 1980s, the governments of Switzerland and Germany have made efforts to provide reparations to victims of the Nazi Holocaust in the 1930s and 1940s. Swiss banks had frozen the assets of Holocaust survivors and their families after World War II, and for many years they denied that those assets existed. With pressure from the international community and the United States mounting, the banks finally acknowledged in 1997 that they were holding thousands of dormant accounts and set up a restitution fund of some $1.25 billion for account holders and their survivors. Senator Alphonse D’Amato of New York, who was then chair of the Senate Banking Committee, was an instru- mental figure in the fight for Swiss reparations. The U.S. government has granted repara- tions to the Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II as a result of EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 9066, signed by President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT in February 1942. The order led to the INCARCERATION of approximately 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry; 77,000 were U.S. citizens, and the rest legal and illegal resident ALIENS. The president was reacting to wartime hysteria that gripped the West Coast immediately after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. As U.S. citizens began to fear a Japanese invasion of the mainland, rumors abounded about treasonous Japanese residents either communicating vital war secrets to the Japanese government or actively aiding the enemy. Though these rumors proved false, Japanese Americans suffered because of their nationality. Those interned were forced to sell their homes, furnishings, and businesses at low, distressed prices because they were only allowed to take what they could carry. Families were uprooted and spent time in relocation camps. These camps were located in inhospitable places with severe weather conditions, and they were poorly outfitted to shelter the prisoners who suffered, became ill, and, in many cases, died. The last of these camps did not close until 1946, six months after the end of the war. In April 2002, Fusako Ishizuka, a Japanese American forced into a U.S. internment camp during WWII, watches a reenact- ment of the 1942 evacuations that took place in Watsonville, California. Most surviving internees of the camps have received reparations from the U.S. government. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 330 REPARATION During the war, Japanese Americans sought restoration of their rights through the courts, but to no avail. In 1942 Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu was convicted for failing to report for relocation. In 1944, the U.S. SUPREME COURT, in KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193, 89 L. Ed. 194, upheld the constitutionality of the relocatio n orders. For 40 years, Japanese Americans sought reparations for their wartime imprisonment and loss of property. The Civil L iberties Ac t of 1 988 (50 App. U.S.C.A. § 1989b) amounted to an apology from the U.S. government for the wartime internment of Japanese Americans. The act established a $1.25 billion trust fund for paying reparations. Each of the a pproximately 60,000 surviving internees received $20,000 tax-free. Reparations are also awarded to some crime victims. Several states have enac ted the Uniform Crime Victims Reparation Act, which awards reparations to persons who have been victims of crimes involving physical violence. Reparations may be gra nted for medical and hospital costs not covered by medical insurance, lost wages, and other costs associated with a crime. In addition, some federal statutes provide for reparations for violations of law. For example, persons suffering losses because of violations of the Commodity Futures Trading Act (7 U.S.C.A. § 18) may use the act to seek reparation against the violator. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was a growing interest in the idea of providing reparations to the descendants of black slaves in the United States. After the U.S. CIVIL WAR, freed black slaves were promised a new start with “40 acres and a mule” to start their own farms. That promise never materialized, and blacks remained victims of racial DISCRIMINATION. The argument for slave reparations is that the United States owes its prosperity in no small part to the millions of slaves who were brought to the United States between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. Most of those slav es were never compensated for their efforts. The effects of SLAVERY and the racial prejudice that went hand in hand with it, even after slavery was outlawed, put blacks at a significant socioeco- nomic disadvantage: fewer opportunities to get a good education, to get good jobs, and to acquire economic security. Proponents of slave reparations maintain that the U.S. government owes the descendants of slaves a formal acknowledgement and apology for the inhuman- ity of slavery. They also believe that the government should seek ways to provide some form of tangible restitution to slave descendants. Opponents of reparations claim that those who seek them are merely trying to exploit national guilt and provide easy money for the descendants of slaves. Many blacks oppose reparations for that reason: they do not wish to carry the stigma of being helpless victims of their circumstances in a country known for individual achievement against daunting odds. Some oppo- nents feel that bringing the issue to the forefront will only open old wounds and in fact increase racial tensions. Others feel that if reparations were granted, it would weaken programs such as AFFIRMATIVE ACTION because people would believe that the reparations had at last leveled the playing field for blacks and whites. The logistics are part of what make s the issue so challenging. Among the proponents of reparations, there exists disagreement as to what form they should take. Some people think that a cash settlement would be sufficient, whereas others want to see the creation of programs that, for instance, would provide education and healthcare funding for those in need. Moreover, there is the question of who would receive precisely which form of reparations. Not all blacks in the United States are descendants of slaves, and in some cases their slave ancestors were freed in the eighteenth century. Each year since 1989, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, recognizing the complex- ity and sensitivity of this issue, has introduced legislation that would establish a commission to study reparations proposals. This commission would study the long-term economic effects of slavery on freed slaves and their descendants and determine a means of providing fair and equitable redress. In 2008 the HOUSE OF REPRE- SENTATIVES passed a resolution apologizing for slavery. The Senate failed to act on this resolution, but in June 2009 it enacted its own apology resolution. It explicitly said that nothing in the resolution authorized or sup- ported reparations. As of August 2009 the House had not agreed to the disclaimer clause, thus putting the joint resolution’s passage in doubt. FURTHER READINGS Bryan, Chad W. 2003. “Precedent for Reparations? A Look at Historical Movements for Redress and Where GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION REPARATION 331 Awarding Reparations for Slavery Might Fit.” Alabama Law Review 54 (winter). Ogletree, Charles J., Jr. 2003. “Repairing the Past: New Efforts in the Reparations Debate.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 38 (summer). Posner, Erica A., and Adrian Vermeule. 2003. “Reparations for Slavery and Other Historical Injustices.” Columbia Law Review 103 (April). Robinson, Randall N. 2001. The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks. New York: Plume. Smith, Heather. 2003. “The Last Battle: Japanese Repara- tions.” American Lawyer 25 (July). CROSS REFERENCES Japanese American Evacuation Cases; Slavery; Victims of Crime. REPEAL The ANNULMENT or abrogation of a previously existing statute by the enactment of a later law that revokes the former law. The revocation of the law can either be done through an express repeal, whereby a statute specifically indicates that the former law shall be revoked and ab rogated, or through an implied repeal, which arises when the later statute contains provisions that are so contrary or irreconcilable with those of the prior law that only one can remain in force. The repeal of a law differs from the amendment thereof, because the amendment of a law in volves making a change in a law that already exists, leaving a portion of the original still standing. When a law is repealed, however, it is completely abrogated. REPLEVIN A legal action to recover the possession of items of PERSONAL PROPERTY. Replevin is one of the oldest FORMS OF ACTION known to COMMON LAW, first appearing about the beginning of the thirteenth century. It was a legal procedure for claiming the right to have personal property returned from the possession of one who had less right to hold it than the plaintiff. Originally the action may have been available only for the recovery of goods that were illegally held past the time the defendant had the right to their possession, but soon the right was extended to cover every situation, whether the defendant wrongfully took or just withheld another’s property. As time passed, if the goods themselves could not be recovered, the courts sometimes gave judgment for an amount of money representing the value of the goods. Generally, however, replevin aimed at restoring the prop- erty itself to the person entitled to possess it. The defendant could not claim as an excuse that the property belonged to someone not involved in the lawsuit because the only issue before the court was rightful possession, not title. For example, an executor of an estate could seek replevy of racehorses boarded by the decedent if the owner of the stable refused to release them. It would be no defense that the executor was not the owner of the horses. Replevin differed from the actions of TRESPASS and TROVER in that it sought recovery of the specific items of property in dispute rather than monetary damages. Unlike trover, the plaintiff was not bound to prove that the defendant had converted the goods to his or her own use, only that the defend ant wrongfully refused to give them up. Unlike trespass, the defendant in an action to replevy goods was not claiming that he or she owned the property, only that he or she was entitled to hold on to it rather than give it to the plaintiff. The action of DETINUE was available to recover property that the defendant acquired lawfully and then unlawfully refused to return, such as in an ordinary BAILMENT situation. Like other forms of action, replevin was wrapped up in technicalities that made it unwieldy for many plaintiffs. Modern statutes have replaced the old forms with more efficient laws of CIVIL PROCEDURE; in most states, these include a particular statute regulating the recovery of personal property wrongfully withheld. These procedures generally incorporate elements of the common-law actions of detinue and replevin. The plaintiff usually initiates proceedings by serving papers showing why he or she claims the property and by posting a bond equal to double the value of the property. Then the sheriff seizes the property and, after a short period, delivers it to the plaintiff to hold until a hearing can be had on the claim. Most statutes allow the defendant to regain the property before the hearing by posting a bond of his or her own and filing an AFFIDAVIT stating that he or she is entitled to possession of the property. In some states, it is possible to punish a defendant who secretes, destroys, or disposes of the property by citing him or her for CONTEMPT of court. An uncooperative defendant or the losing party can be ordered to pay monetary damages to the other party. The bond posted by either party is a source of money to pay any costs or damages assessed against that party. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 332 REPEAL REPLICATION In COMMON-LAW PLEADING, the response of a plaintiff to the defendant’s plea in an action at law, or to the defendant’s answer in a suit in EQUITY. Common-law PLEADING required the PLAIN- TIFF to set out the claim in a declaration or, in equity, in a bill. The DEFENDANT responded with a plea or answer. When the defendant raised a new point in his or her response, the plaintiff was required to introduce an additional fact that defeated this new point. The plaintiff had an opportunity to respond in a paper called a replication. The modern equivalent is known as the reply. Some U.S. jurisdictions still recognize replications as a valid type of pleading. REPLY The PLEADING in which a plaintiff responds to the defendant’s demand for relief asserted in a set-off or counterclaim. In most states and in the federal courts, a reply is permitted only when the defendant has specifically made a properly labeled counter- claim or when the court orders the plaintiff to file a formal response to an answer. REPORT An official or formal statement of facts or proceedings. To give an account of; to relate; to tell or convey information; the written statement of such an account. For example, one kind of report is the formal statement in writing made to a court by a master, a clerk, or a referee who has been appointed to inquire into a particular matter for the court. Sometimes the report of a public official is distinguished from a retu rn. A return typically discloses something done or observed by the official, whereas a report shows the results of an investigation into matters outside the personal knowledge of the official. Regularly published volumes of books con- taining accounts of decisions and opinions of various courts are sometimes referred to as reports, but more often they are called reporters. The ANNUAL REPORT for stockholders is prepared by a corporation, a consumer report describes the qualities of a manufactured product, and a credit report assesses the creditworthiness of a business or consumer for a bank or other lender. REPORTER One who prepares a summary or gives an account. A court reporter is a person who records court proceedings as they take place and then later transcribes the account. A published volume of the decisions of a court or a group of courts. The National Reporter System, published by Thomson West, is the most comprehensive collection of the decisions of the appellate courts of the states and of the United States. There are 18 reporters in the National Reporter System. Eight of the units cover federal courts and ten units cover the 50 states and the District of Columbia. All decisions, opinions, and memoranda of the U.S. Supreme Court are published in the Supreme Court Reporter (cited as S. Ct.). The ADVANCE SHEETS are issued semimonthly during the term of the Court. At the end of the term, two or three hardbound volumes are published, depending on the number of cases decided. The Federal Reporter (F.), Federal Reporter, Second Series (F.2d), and Federal Reporter, Third Series (F.3d) contain the reported cases of the U.S. Courts of Appeal, Court of Claims, Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and TEMPORARY EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS . The Federal Supple- ment (F.Supp.) reports decisions of the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the Judicial Panel on Multistate Litigation. Federal Rules Decisions (F.R.D.) contains district court opinions construing the Federal Rules of CIVIL PROCEDURE. Military Justice Reporter (M.J.) carries the cases of the Court of Military Appeals and Courts of Military Review. Bankruptcy Reporter (Bankr.) reports decisions of the U.S. BANKRUPTCY Courts and bankruptcy decisions of other federal courts. The regional units of the National Reporter System report the opinions of the highest courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, these reporters contain opinions of state intermediate appellate courts that are selected by the courts for publication. Many of the states have designated the unit of the National Reporter System in which their cases appear as their official reports. The regional units of this system are the Atlantic Reporter, Second Series (A., A.2d); North Western Reporter, Second Series (N.W., N.W.2d); Pacific Reporter, Second Series (P., P.2d); South Eastern Reporter, Second Series (S.E., S.E.2d); Southern Reporter, Second Series (So., So.2d); and South Western Reporter, Second Series (S.W., S.W.2d). Because of the large volume of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION REPORTER 333 reported cases, three states have their own reporter units. They are the California Reporter (Cal. Rptr.); Illinois Decisions (Ill. Dec.); and New York Supplement and New York Supple- ment, Second Series (N.Y.S., N.Y.S.2d). REPOSSESSION The creditor’s physical taking back of an item that has been sold on credit, because the debtor has not made sufficient or timely payments on it. The item is often sold or otherwise exchanged, and the proceeds are put toward the money owed and also toward the costs of the repossession. If an individual fails to render prompt payments on a car, for example, the car might be subject to repossession (or “repo” colloqui- ally) by the finance company, which has extended the credit. One central requirement on the part of the repossessing seller (or their agent), however, is that they not disturb the peace in the process. This standard is not specifically defined in the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (Article 9), and cases are fact-specific, but various courts have interpreted the rule to encompass threats, acts of violence or acts that are likely to lead to violence, or episodes that would disturb the quiet of the community. REPRESENT To exhibit or expose; to appear in the character of. To speak on behalf of the interests of a party or a constituency in legal proceedings or as a delegate in a function or ongoing deliberative body. When an item is represented, it is produced publicly. For example, when a party asserts a fact or a claim, he or she is said to make “representations” to that effect. To represent an individual means to stand in his or her place for a specific legal purpose, generally in order to provide expertise w ith regard to the substantive and procedural details involved. Examples may include a litigator’s role in an adversarial situation, such as a court hearing, or an advisory capacity, such as a REAL ESTATE closing during a home purchase. An attorney who represents a client often thus acts as his or her substitute or agent in acting or speaking on behalf of the client. In the American democratic system, a locality, state, or federal congressional district will elect a single individual as a delegate to a legislative body in order to represent (i.e., advocate and vote on behalf of) the public. REPRESENTATION Any action or conduct that can be turned into a statement of fact. For example, displaying a car with an odometer reading of ten miles constitutes a representation to a prospective buyer that the car has only been driven ten miles. The term representation is used in reference to any express or implied statement made by one of the parties to a contrac t to another, regarding a particular fact or circumstance that serves to influence the consummation of the deal. As applied to the law of DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION , representation is the principl e by which the issue of an individual who has died inherits the portion of an estate that such person would have taken if he or she had lived. REPRESENTATIVE An individual who stands in the place of another. With respect to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,arepre- sentative is an individual chosen by the electorate to serve as its spokesperson in a legislative body, such as the SENATE or HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE is an individual who is named in a will, or appointed by a probate court, to supervise the distribution of property remaining after another individual’s death. CROSS R EFERENCE Guardian ad Litem. REPRESENTATIVE ACTION A legal action in which one or a few members of a class sue on behalf of themselves and other members of the same class; a lawsuit brought by the stockholders of a corporation, on its behalf, for the enforcement of a corporate right. CROSS R EFERENCE Class Action. REPRIEVE The suspension of the execution of the death penalty for a period of time, often at a time close to the scheduled execution. Reprieve is generally an act of CLEMENCY that is extended to a prisoner in order to give him or her an opportunity to find a means or reason for reducing the sentence imposed. The term reprieve is also used generally in reference to the withdrawal of any sentence for a period of time. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 334 REPOSSESSION In August 2008 Troy Davis received a reprieve from the U.S. SUPREME COURT as a new evidentiary hearing was ordered so that the district court could “receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could have been obtained at the time of trial” could prove innocence. Davis had been tried and convicted of a 1989 MURDER of a Savannah, Georgia, police officer and then sentenced to death in 1991, but seven of the prosecution’s nine witnesses later changed or recanted their testimony. In DISSENT, Justices ANTONIN SCALIA and CLARENCE THOMAS expressed their doubts as to the constitutional right to a reprieve even if subse- quent evidence proves innocence. In Re Troy Anthony Davis on Petition for Writ of HABEAS CORPUS , 557 U.S. ___ (2009). State governors can grant reprieves as well. For example, in September 2009, Ohio Gover- nor Ted Strickland gave death-row inmate Romell Broom a rare, once-week reprieve after officials were unable to locate a vein into which to insert a lethal injection after several hours of trying. (Broom had been convicted of a 1984 murder of a 14-year-old girl.) However, as w ith reprieves in general, this act was not specifically intended to spare Broom’s life or commute his sentence, as it directed the state to proceed again “unless further reprieve or clemency is granted.” A federal judge in Ohio then further delayed the execution with a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , and as of the time of this writing, Romell was still awaiting a hearing to determine whether his execution would consti- tute CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. REPRISAL The act of punishing another for some injury the latter caused. In terms of international law, a reprisal is the forcible taking, in time of peace, by the government of one country the property or territory belonging to another country or belong- ing to the citizens of the other country, as redress intended to satisfy a claim. Reprisals in INTERNATIONAL LAW contexts were clearly defined in the Naulilaa Case (Portugal v. Germany), 2 UN Reports Of International Arbitral Awards 1012 (Portuguese-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, 1928 ): “A reprisal is an act of self-help by the injured state, responding—after an unsatisfied demand—to an act contrary to international law committed by the offending state. Its object is to effect REPARATION from the offending state for the offense or a return to legality by the avoidance of further offenses.” The UN General Assembly, in its 1970 Declaration on Principles of Interna- tional Law, declared, “States have a duty to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force.” Resolution 2625 (XXV). There is a fine distinction between a “lawful reprisal,” and an act of revenge or retaliation, which is always illegal under international law. Although reprisals are acts that normally would be considered illegal, circumstances can boost them into the realm of the legitimate. To be considered legitimate, reprisals must be taken in response to prior illegal attacks. A reprisal is a form of SELF-DEFENSE and can only be used as a last resort; it must be executed with the view of restoring a sense of equilibrium in international relations and ensuring future compliance with legal norms. The notion of proportionality is important in reprisals. Any response from an aggrieved country must be proportional to the injury it sustained. For example, if an enemy uses an illegal weapon such as a chemical warhead, the concept of reprisal would permit the use of weapons that would “otherwise be unlawful in order to compel the enemy to cease its prior violation.” In addition to concerns of propor- tionality, the methods of reprisals are also important considerations. For example, eco- nomic sanctions are generally illegal, but when they are used as a response to a prior illegal act, they are generally considered legally permissible. Although it may seem warlike, a reprisal is not technically an act of war. Rather, it is done solely in response to conduct that violated international law . However, reprisals have the potential to provoke a war, which is why they are so strongly discouraged in international law. In fact, the COVENANT of the LEAGUE OF NATIONS and the Charter of the UNITED NATIONS classify reprisals as acts endangering peace. There are two broad categories of reprisals: forceful and non-forceful reprisals. Forceful reprisals include using arms; non-forceful reprisals include expelling ambassadors or imposing economic sanctions. Reprisal can only occur in situations arising between natio n states. There is no legitimate reprisal against a non-state-actor criminal, such as the head of an international terrorist organization or drug lord. Since the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS in 2001, the actions of the U.S. government and its allies as GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION REPRISAL 335 they prosecute the War on Terror have focused attention on the international law governing reprisals. The pursuit of Osama bin Laden and other individuals suspected of having ties to international terrorist organizations have drawn criticism. Critics point out that Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions forbids reprisals against civilians and civilian property. The United States is not a party to Protocol I, however, and does not consider the conventions’ prohi- bitions against reprisals directed at al l civilians to be part of customary international law. On the other hand, the United States is a party to the Geneva Convention on Civilians and follows its provisions regarding reprisals against pro- tected civilians and their property. Generally, a protected person is one who finds himself or herself “in the hands” of the opposing forces. FURTHER READINGS Green, L.C. 2000. The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict. 2d ed. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Pious, Richard. 2006. The War on Terrorism and the Rule of Law. New York: Oxford University Press. Rodin, David. 2002. War and Self-Defense. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. Saul, Ben. 2008. Defining Terrorism in International Law. New York: Oxford University Press. Van der Wolf, René and Willem-Jan, eds. 2002. Laws of War and International Law. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers. CROSS REFERENCE Restitution. REPRODUCTION A woman’s right to determine whether she will give birth was not legally recognized until the 1960s and 1970s, when U.S. Supreme Court decisions established that right. Until that time, women in the United States were denied acces s to BIRTH CONTROL and to legal abortions by state criminal laws. Since the 1970s, there has been ongoing controversy over legalized ABORTION, with the Supreme Court allowing states to impose restrictions on obtaining the procedure. In addi- tion, medical science has developed techniques of ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION and in vitro fertilization that enable pregnancy. These advances, in turn, have created opportunities for SURROGATE MOTHER- HOOD , opening up even more legal issues dealing with reproductive rights. Because of the cultural importance placed on motherhood and the intersection of religious beliefs and public policy, the debate over reproductive rights has been contentious. Historical Background In the nineteenth century, the average size of the U.S. family declined dramatically. A white woman in 1800 gave birth to an average of seven children. By the end of the century, the average was three-and-a-half children. In part, the decline was caused by the dissemination of scientific information on BIRTH CONTROL.Manyofthe nineteenth-century proponents of family plan- ning were radical social reformers who offended church and community leaders with their graphic descriptions of human REPRODUCTION. Conservatives sought to curtail this informa- tion on birth control and ABORTION.Themost prominent conservative watchdog was Anthony Comstock, a New York businessman who led a national reform effort against obscene materials. His work resulted in the federal COMSTOCK LAW OF 1873, w h ich criminalized the transm i ssion and receipt of “obscene,”“lewd,” or “lascivious” publications through the U.S. mail. The law specified that materials designed, adapted, or intended “for preventing conception or producing abortion” were included in the list of banned items. Some states passed “little Comstock laws” that prohibited the use of contraceptives. Until the second half of the nineteenth century, few states had criminal laws against abortion. Women in colonial times had used abortion to dispose of the offspring of RAPE or seduction. Abortion was not illegal under the COMMON LAW as long as it was performed before “quickening,” the period at about four months when the fetus begins to move in the womb. State legislatures passed laws in the first half of the nineteenth century that adopted the quickening rule, and a few states allowed abortion after quickening to save the life of the mother. Abortions increased markedly in the 1850s and 1860s, especially among middle- class white w omen. Religious leaders began to denounce abor- tion, but the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (AMA) proved to be the most successful in ending legalized abortion. The AMA was formed in 1847, and the all-male professional group (women were not allowed to become doctors) made abortion law reform one of its top priorities. The AMA saw abortion reform as a way to increase its influence and to drive out unlicensed practitioners of abortion. By the 1880s, medical and religious leaders had convinced all-male state legislatures (women GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 336 REPRODUCTION were not allowed to vote) to impose criminal penalties on persons performing abortions and, in some states, on the women who had abortions. The law s were based on the states’ POLICE POWER to regulate public health and safety. This had some justification because abortion procedures of the time were danger- ous, subjecting women to sterility and, in many cases, death. In response, women turned to birth control and to illegal abortions. The legal restrictions on birth control and abortion that were created in the late nineteenth century were not be removed until the 1960s and 1970s. Birth Control In the early twentieth century, a group of reformers sought to provide birth control information legally. The most prominent of these reformers was MARGARET SANGER,who coined the term birth control. Sanger challenged state laws restricting birth control information, seeking to draw public support. Though the courts generally rebuffed her efforts, Sanger helped build a national movement. In 1921 she founded the American Birth Control League, which in 1942 became the Planned Parenthood FEDERATION of America. Renewed legal challenges to restrictive state laws began in the 1950s. By 1960, almost every state had legalized birth control. Nevertheless, laws remained on the books that prevented the distribution of birth control information and contraceptives. A specific target was the 1879 Connecticut little Comstock law that made the sale and possession of birth control devices a misdemeanor. The law also prohibited anyone from assisting, abetting, or counseling another in the use of birth control devices. The SUPREME COURT reviewed the Connecticut law in GRISWOLD V. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965). Estelle Griswold was the director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. Just three days after Planned Parenthood opened a clinic in New Haven, Griswold was arrested. She was convicted and fined $100. The Connecticut courts upheld her conviction, rejecting the contention that the state law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court struck down the Con- necticut birth control law on a vote of 7 to 2. In his majority opinion, Justice WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS announced that the law was unconstitutional because it violated an individual’srightto privacy. Douglas asserted that “specific guarantees in the BILL OF RIGHTS have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy.” Thus, these “penum- bras” (things on the fringe of a major region) and “emanations” added up to a general, inde- pendent right of privacy. In Douglas’sview,this general right was infringed by the state of Connecticut when it outlawed birth control. He said that the state cannot be permitted “to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives.” The Griswold decision invalidated the Con- necticut law only insofar as it invaded marital privacy, leaving open the question of whether states could prohibit the use of birth control devices by unmarried persons. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92 S. Ct. 1029, 31 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1972), the Court reviewed a Massachusetts law that prohibited unmarried persons from obtaining and using contraceptives. William Baird was arrest ed after giving a lecture on birth control to a college group and providing contraceptive foam to a female student. The Court struck down the law, establishing that the right of privacy is an individual right, not a right enjoyed only by married couples. Justice WILLIAM J . BRENNAN JR., in his majority opinion, stated, “If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affect- ing a person as the decision whether or not to beget a child.” With Griswold and Eisenstadt, state PROHIBI- TION of birth control information and devices came to an end. These decisions also enabled schools to give more information to students concerning sex education. Some schools now even dispense contraceptives. In 1997 the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) approved the use of emergency contracep- tive, known popularly as the “morning-after pill.” Developed by Canadian professor Albert Yuzpe and known as the Yuzpe Regimen, the pill contains heavy dosages of hormones that can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse. Proponents, including pro- choice advocates in the abortion debate, claim that it is a safe and effective method of birth control. Pro-life advocates and others denounce the pill as a form of abortion. Some critics in the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION REPRODUCTION 337 . ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 3 28 REORGANIZATION PLAN law at the time the plan is transmitted to Congress; 5. increasing the term of an office beyond that provided by law for the office;. a source of money to pay any costs or damages assessed against that party. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 332 REPEAL REPLICATION In COMMON -LAW PLEADING, the response of a plaintiff to. So.2d); and South Western Reporter, Second Series (S.W., S.W.2d). Because of the large volume of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION REPORTER 333 reported cases, three states have their own reporter