Multiple states have attempted to impose greater restrictions on abortion over the past several years. A similar Arizona law was deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge just last month, and another similar law was enjoined [JURIST reports] by a Georgia state court in December. The Wisconsin State Assembly [official website] approved a bill [SB 206] last week that will require those women seeking abortions to review an ultrasound of the fetus before having the procedure. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] in May in the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] seeking to permanently enjoin a state law [HB 2443, PDF] that penalizes doctors, not patients, who perform abortions when the patient's decision is based solely on the gender or race of the fetus. Also last month a judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas [official website] temporarily blocked enforcement of a law banning abortions 12 weeks into a pregnancy [JURIST report].

This ongoing case arose from the 2003 death of Territorial Army [official website] Private Jason Smith in Basra. The Assistant Deputy Coroner for Oxfordshire Andrew Walker [BBC profile] found that Smith's death was the result of "a serious failure to recognize and take appropriate steps to address the difficulty that he had in adjusting to the climate." Walker prompted Smith's family to file suit against the MOD. The High Court [official website] subsequently ruled in 2008 [JURIST report] that British service members are entitled to legal protection of their human rights "wherever they may be." This ruling came despite arguments by the MOD that the Human Rights Act 1998 [text] does not apply to soldiers on active service abroad outside bases under British military jurisdiction. In May 2009 the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [official website] upheld the High Court's ruling [JURIST report], finding that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) [text] applies to UK troops serving abroad. The court found that the UK's obligation under the Human Rights Act extends in some cases beyond territorial jurisdiction, including foreign service by military personnel.

In addition to the violations of the rights to work and health, the security system being implemented at the site has exposed artisanal miners to serious abuses, including arbitrary and unlawful detention. ... None of the human rights violations or abuses ... [have] been addressed.

Last month AI published its annual report [JURIST report] entitled State of the World's Human Rights [materials], which details the human rights landscape across the world in 2012. The report focuses on the increasing danger faced by those displaced from their homes, which includes members of communities in the DRC where mining companies have bought the mining rights and been permitted to vacate the surface occupants. Chinese mining companies in Zambia [JURIST report] have also been accused of human rights violations.

Hungary has recently received much criticism [JURIST op-ed] for the recent changes to its constitution. In May Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] reported that the country's new constitution undermines basic human rights [JURIST report]. Other constitutional changes have been subject to criticism, including restrictions on the homeless [JURIST report] and increased control of the media. The new laws were controversial when they were passed [JURIST report] and have been subject to ongoing scrutiny.

In February a federal judge granted [opinion, PDF] class action status in a lawsuit brought to stop the NYPD from continuing its "stop-and-frisk" [JURIST report] practice outside of apartment buildings in the Bronx. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionally of "Operation Clean Halls," which is part of the NYPD's broader "stop-and-frisk" policy that allows police to patrol private apartments all over New York City. The NYPD has come under scrutiny in the past for alleged discriminatory surveillance. Last June Muslim rights group filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] alleging that the NYPD had engaged in surveillance of Muslim schools, including kindergarten and elementary schools, as well as entire communities. Senior Volunteer Attorney for the Muslim Civil Liberties Union, Samar Warsi commented [JURIST hotline] that the NYPD surveillance of Muslims can have serious implication for civil liberties in the US.

48 detainees were unanimously approved for continued detention under the AUMF based on a finding that they pose a national security threat that could not be mitigated sufficiently at this time if they were to be transferred from U.S. custody. The Task Force concluded as to all of these detainees that prosecution is not feasible at this time in either federal court or the military commission system. At the Same time, the Task Force concluded that there is a lawful basis for continuing to detain these detainees under the AUMF.

Earlier this week President Barack Obama [official website] appointed [JURIST report] Clifford Sloan to be the new envoy in charge of closing Guantanamo Bay. The Pentagon Prosecutor at Guantanamo announced that only seven more captives are expected to be charged [Miami Herald report]> report] at Guantanamo. Last week the US Department of Defense [official website] announced that military commission charges [JURIST report] were filed against Iraqi prisoner And al-Hadi al-Iraqi for allegedly commanding al Qaeda. Earlier in June, the House Armed Services Committee approved the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) [HR 1960, PDF], which would keep the detention center at Guantanamo Bay open. In April the UN High Commission for Human Rights Navi Pillay called for US authorities to close down the Guantanamo prison [JURIST report].

The atmosphere is still clearly highly combustible ... and it is important that the authorities recognize that the initial extremely heavy-handed response to the protests, which resulted in many injuries, is still a major part of the problem. Because of that response, the scope of the protests broadened to include other aspects of governance, including those relating to fundamental human rights, such as freedom of assembly and freedom of opinion and expression.

Pillay previously urged [JURIST report] Turkey to respect the right to assemble. Earlier this month Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] called on police [JURIST report] to use non-violent tactics with civilians. This outbreak of violence comes about one month after Turkey's Grand National Assembly approved amendments [BIA summary] to the country's anti-terrorism laws to bring them more in line with EU freedom of expression standards. In February the Council of Europe urged Turkey to move more quickly [JURIST report] in its efforts to reform the laws governing freedom of expression and anti-terrorism. In November the UN Human Rights Committee criticized Turkey for prosecuting activists [JURIST op-ed] under the country's vague counterterrorism law. In March 2011 a spokesperson for the UN OHCHR urged Turkish officials to respect journalists' freedom of expression [JURIST comment].

While our community still has concerns about the environmental impacts of this new technology, it is essential for these tough restrictions to become law to protect our communities. The environmental community looks forward to working with the governor and agencies to make sure that this bill is strongly enforced.

Hydraulic fracturing [JURIST news archive], commonly referred to as "fracking," is a highly debated topic in regions where recent Marcellus shale gas developments have been associated with toxic water pollution. The New York State Assembly [official website] in March approved a two-year ban [JURIST report] on fracking. The measure postpones any potential fracking until May 15, 2015, by which time a "comprehensive health impact assessment" can be conducted to identify potential public health impacts that may result from the process. The ban represents a continuation of a previous ban on fracking that has been in place in the state since 2008. Also in March, JURIST guest columnist Nicolas Parke debunked the rumors [JURIST op-ed] around fracking. In February JURIST guest columnist Samantha Peaslee detailed the future of fracking [JURIST op-ed] in Colorado in the wake of recent lawsuits against fracking companies in the state. In 2012 Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont, New Jersey, New York and the Environmental Protection Agency [JURIST reports] all took regulatory, legislative and judicial steps towards restricting hydraulic fracturing for fear of environmental and public health concerns.

Ntaganga first appeared in front of the ICC in March and denied [JURIST report] the charges against him. The Congolese general voluntarily turned himself over to the ICC in March following his surrender to a US embassy [JURIST reports] in Rwanda, marking the first time a wanted person has voluntarily surrendered to the ICC. Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] had called for Ntaganda's arrest on multiple occasions: most recently a direct appeal last year to Democratic Republic of the Congo President Joseph Kabila and previously in 2011 during an international conference after its first request in 2010 [JURIST reports].

Saif al-Islam made his second appearance in court in early May, but the trial was postponed at that time to allow for more preparation. Saif al-Islam first appeared in court [JURIST report] in Zintan in January. His appearance came after the ICC demanded that Libyan officials address reports that they planned to try Saif al-Islam and former Gaddafi intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi. Libya has continued to refuse to hand the two men over to the ICC after announcing plans to try them [JURIST reports] in Libya. In October Libyan government lawyers urged [JURIST report] the ICC to allow them to be tried in Libya and promised that the trial would be fair. In August Saif al-Islam stated that he preferred to be tried by the ICC [JURIST report] out of fear that Libya would not try him fairly. Last June four ICC staff members who traveled to Libya to speak with Saif al-Islam, including Melinda Taylor, were detained [JURIST report] by Libyan security forces and were in custody for nearly four weeks before being released.

Despite the ages of the accused, authorities have continued to arrest individuals charged with war crimes during the Holocaust. In May German authorities arrested [JURIST report] a 93-year-old man for allegedly serving as a guard at Auschwitz and assisting in the mass murder carried out at the death camp. German prosecutors have reopened [JURIST report] hundreds of investigations involving former death camp guards after the conviction [JURIST report] of John Demjanjuk [NNDB profile; JURIST news archive] in May 2011 for the murder of thousands during the Holocaust. Demjanjuk was sentenced to five years in prison but was released early due to old age and died in September 2011 while awaiting an appeal [JURIST report].

Ruto is facing trial for crimes against humanity for his alleged involvement in inciting the violence that followed the 2007 Kenyan election [JURIST news archive] which led to more than 1,100 deaths. Also facing trial is Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta [ICC materials]. In May African foreign ministers requested [JURIST report] that Kenyatta and Ruto by tried in Kenya instead of by the ICC after the Kenyan Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) [advocacy website] released a report [JURIST report] connecting Kenyatta and Ruto to the post-election violence. Even with charges for crimes against humanity pending against them, Kenyatta and Ruto were able to win a controversial election [JURIST report] in March. Kenyatta's trial was postponed [JURIST report] and is set to begin on July 9.

Libya is still recovering from the 2011 conflict [JURIST backgrounder] that toppled the regime of Muammar Gaddafi [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive]. Earlier this month the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website]rejected [JURIST report] a challenge by the Libyan government attempting to attain jurisdiction over Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi [BBC profile]. In April Libya's national assembly criminalized [JURIST report] torture and kidnapping in an attempt to rein in the country's armed militias. In March Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged [JURIST report] the Libya government to ensure the protection of civilians. Also in March the trial [JURIST report] of 40 former Libyan officials began earlier in al-Zawiya. The charges included inciting the killing of protesters during the revolution, wasting public funds, embezzlement and abuse of power. In February the ICC called on Libya [JURIST report] to extradite former Gaddafi intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi [BBC profile].

New opportunities now exist for taking an inclusive integrated approach for all waves of IDPs, in the country. ... These include: the proposed revised legislation on IDPs; the realignment of the 2007 strategy on IDPs with the proposed law; the onset of a new registration exercise for all IDPs that should as well profile their vulnerability and needs, and inclusive policies being formulated by the Government in the fields of health, land, agriculture, education, and employment generating activities.

Thousands of people were displaced and several thousand were killed as a result of conflicts with Abkhazia and South Ossetia [BBC backgrounders; JURIST news archive] in the early 1990s. The 2008 conflict [BBC report] between Russia and Georgia caused the number of refugees to rise again. In January Georgia's parliament freed 190 prisoners [JURIST report], many of which were arrested while protesting Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili, as part of an amnesty agreement that was strongly opposed by Saakashvili. In December Georgian Chief Prosecutor Archil Kbilashvili announced [JURIST report] that the former justice minister in Georgia, Justice Minister Zurab Adeishvili, was set to be charged on December 26 in connection with the torture of prisoners in the country's capital of Tbilisi. The prosecution investigated allegations of torture in the prison. In September UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called on authorities in Georgia to investigate [JURIST report] prisoner mistreatment after video footage allegedly depicted the torture and rape of prisoners in the country's capital of Tbilisi.

Therefore, although certain societal circumstances may have changed since 1968 when the challenged provision was added to the Constitution—and, indeed, some of the original justifications for mandatory retirement may not have reflected the most fair or even the most beneficial public policy—the proper approach of conforming the Constitution more closely with Petitioners' vision of how experiential changes should be taken into account is to pursue further amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The US Supreme Court [official website] has previously considered the merits of a challenge to mandatory retirement provisions of a state constitution. In Gregory v. Ashcroft [opinion], Missouri state court judges challenged a mandatory retirement provision in the state constitution, but the Supreme Court held that the provision did not violate equal protection. Mandatory retirement laws have been considered in European courts of law as well. In November the European Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] struck down [JURIST report] a law which would have lowered the mandatory retirement age for judges in Hungary from 70 to 62, stating the law was not proportionate to the objectives Hungary was pursing. In 2009 the ECJ ruled that UK mandatory retirement laws were not discriminatory [JURIST report], stating age-based classifications are justifiable in some circumstances. The ECJ also ruled in 2007 that the EU's mandatory retirement policies [JURIST report] did not violate the prohibition against age discrimination if the policy is intended to further the legitimate public interest of increasing employment and the retirees are provided with full pensions.

According to a study [JURIST report] released by Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] in April, although use of the death penalty has decreased worldwide since 2003, the US was one of the five countries employing the death penalty most frequently in 2012. In spite of this, many states have moved to abolish the death penalty in recent years. In May Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley [official website] signed into law [JURIST report] a bill to repeal the death penalty. Maryland is the eighteenth state to repeal the death penalty and the sixth do to so in the previous five years. Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Illinois [JURIST reports] have all recently eliminated the death penalty, while 32 states retain its use, according to the Death Penalty Information Center [advocacy website]. However, California voters declined to repeal the death penalty [JURIST report] on the most recent ballot, with 47 percent of voters supporting the repeal last November.

The president now has ordered the restart of transfers out of Guantanamo, lifted the moratorium on transfers to Yemen, and appointed top officials at the White House and State Department to get it done. Once President Obama makes the necessary appointment at the Pentagon to begin transferring detainees out of Guantanamo, he should immediately begin doing so. With more than half of the detainees already cleared for transfer or release, and dozens more being held without ever being charged or tried, it's time to start sending these men home.

Earlier this month the House Armed Services Committee [official website] approved [JURIST report] the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) [HR 1960, PDF], which would keep the detention center at Guantanamo Bay open despite Obama's statements that he will close it. According to the official summary [text, PDF], the bill allocates over 200 million dollars to restore dilapidated facilities, as well as improve staff facilities. Last month Obama renewed his pledge to make an effort to close the detention center [JURIST report]. Also in May JURIST Guest Columnist David Frakt of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law argued that the Obama administration should release those detainees [JURIST op-ed] held at Guantanamo Bay who have already been declared to not be a danger to the US. In April UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] called for US authorities to close down the Guantanamo prison camp [JURIST report], emphasizing the continued indefinite incarcerations of many detainees as a clear violation of international law.

This summons comes only three days after the candidate Ahmadinejad supported failed to meet the threshold amount of support to make Friday's presidential ballot [Guardian report]. Ahmadinejad, who has already completed two terms, was constitutionally barred [text] from running for office a third time. Hassan Rouhani [BBC backgrounder], a moderate and former chief nuclear negotiator, won the election and has vowed to move towards more peaceful negotiations with the west regarding international nuclear arms and human rights issues [JURIST news archive].

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented separately, and Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion. Thomas based his dissent on his interpretation of the Constitution, in which "The States, not the Federal Government, have the exclusive right to define the 'Qualifications requisite for Electors,' ... which includes the corresponding power to verify that those qualifications have been met." Alito, in his dissent, wrote that "Properly interpreted, the NVRA permits Arizona to require applicants for federal voter registration to provide proof of eligibility." The court heard oral arguments in the case in March, and granted certiorari [JURIST reports] in October. The Ninth Circuit struck down [JURIST report] the proof of citizenship requirement last year while upholding a provision requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls.

The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in this case in January. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the opposing lawyers were undertaking a solicitation of individuals as potential clients for their own commercial purpose and were not using the information in connection with litigation. They further argued that the primary purpose of the DPPA was to prevent such solicitations, thus all of the exceptions must be read in light of that primary purpose. Counsel for the respondents, argued that the "litigation" exception was extremely broad, authorizing any use of driver information "covering the litigation process from cradle to grave."

Here, the sentencing range supported by the jury's verdict was five years' imprisonment to life. The District Court imposed the 7-year mandatory minimum sentence based on its finding by a preponderance of evidence that the firearm was "brandished." Because the finding of brandishing increased the penalty to which the defendant was subjected, it was an element, which had to be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge, rather than the jury, found brandishing, thus violating petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights.

Since Harris was decided, the court has gained three new members, and two in the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, have left the court. At oral arguments [JURIST report] in January, counsel for the defendant argued, "Any fact that entitles a prosecution by law to a sentence more severe than a judge could otherwise impose must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt." Counsel for the US urged the court to adhere to its ruling in Harris, "because those decisions properly respected the fact that a mandatory minimum divests the defendant of the right to judicial leniency."

In sum, a reverse payment, where large and unjustified, can bring with it the risk of significant anticompetitive effects; one who makes such a payment may be unable to explain and to justify it; such a firm or individual may well possess market power derived from the patent; a court, by examining the size of the payment, may well be able to assess its likely anticompetitive effects along with its potential justifications without litigating the validity of the patent; and parties may well find ways to settle patent disputes without the use of reverse payments. In our view, these considerations, taken together, outweigh the single strong consideration—the desirability of settlements—that led the Eleventh Circuit to provide near-automatic antitrust immunity to reverse payment settlements.

The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in March. The FTC argued that reverse payment agreements are "paradigmatic antitrust trust violation[s]" because "they subvert the competitive process by giving generic manufacturers an incentive to accept a share of their rival's monopoly profits as a substitute for actual competition." Respondents, a group of pharmaceutical companies, argued that reverse-payment agreements are simply settlements. "You're not accepting infringement. What you're doing is recognizing there's a reasonable basis to assert the patent, a bona fide reasonable dispute, and the parties have the ability to settle the dispute. Just as if the party—if someone was entering into a license agreement with—with someone who had a product that they claimed did not infringe the patent, they sat down, negotiated a license and resolved it." The majority of reverse payment settlements arise in the context of pharmaceutical drug regulation.

It has long been settled that the privilege [against self-incrimination] "generally is not self-executing" and that a witness who desires its protection "must claim it." Although "no ritualistic formula is necessary in order to invoke the privilege," ... a witness does not do so by simply standing mute. Because petitioner was required to assert the privilege in order to benefit from it, the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejecting petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim is affirmed.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in April. The attorney for Salinas argued that using Salinas' silence in this way violates The Supreme Court's 1987 decision in Griffith v. Kentucky [opinion]. An assistant district attorney in Houston argued on behalf of Texas. He asserted that "absent invocation" of the right to silence, refusing to answer a question can be used as evidence against a defendant's innocence. The federal government supported this view, arguing that the court's 1983 decision in Minnesota v. Murphy [opinion] holds as "the general rule that the Fifth Amendment privilege is not self-executing and that a suspect must invoke it in order to claim its protection to a noncustodial interview in."

In Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court limited the grant to the following question: "Whether Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) [text, PDF] immunity may be denied without a determination that the air carrier's disclosure was materially false." The ATSA requires airlines and their employees to report to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) [official website] any and all potential security threats to the nation's air transportation system. To encourage such reports, the ATSA provides a broad grant of immunity from suit, shielding airlines and their employees from all liability, including liability for state-law defamation. The only exception to this immunity is for reports made "with actual knowledge that the disclosure was false, inaccurate, or misleading" or "with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of that disclosure." In this case William Hoeper was employed as a pilot by Air Wisconsin. An Air Wisconsin manager reported Hoeper to the TSA as a possible threat after Heoper became angry during a certification test. Hoeper brought a defamation suit against Air Wisconsin in Colorado Court. The Supreme Court of Colorado held [opinion] that Air Wisconsin was not entitled to immunity and that the statements were false.

In Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers [docket; cert. petition, PDF] a federal district court ruled on a breach-of-contract claim for damages. Just over a month later, it ruled on a discrete contractual claim for damages pleaded in the same complaint, which (a) sought to recoup pre-litigation (as well as litigation) collection expenses and fees and (b) was not contingent on being a "prevailing party" in litigation. The question presented is whether the first order is a "final decision" that must be appealed separately under 28 USC § 1291 [text], or whether instead a notice of appeal filed within 30 days of the second order brings the entire case before the court of appeals. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled [opinion] that an appeal filed within 30 days of the second ruling, but more than 30 days after the first ruling, was timely as to all issues.

Finally, in Law v. Siegel [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will decide whether the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in allowing the bankruptcy trustee [opinion] to surcharge the debtor's constitutionally protected homestead property.

In January 2009 US President Barack Obama signed into law [JURIST report] the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, extending the deadline for employees to sue their employers for unequal pay discrimination under a disparate treatment theory. The law's "clarification" of equal pay protections effectively overturned the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], which held that "a pay-setting decision is a discrete act that occurs at a particular point in time" and that the statutory period for filing a discrimination claim with the EEOC begins when that discrete act occurs. The new law altered Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [text] to clarify that the six-month statute of limitations controlling racial, gender, or national origin employment discrimination suits is applicable to each instance of a discriminatory practice, including the receipt of each paycheck, not only to the initial discriminatory act. The initial lawsuit was brought by Lilly Ledbetter, a Goodyear employee for 19 years, who alleged that she received less pay than male counterparts because of gender discrimination. The Supreme Court upheld the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's reversal [opinion, PDF] of a district court decision awarding Ledbetter $360,000 in damages.