We hope this legislation will help the United States work with other nations to better protect [journalists] serving on the frontlines in the fight for greater accountability and transparency. Freedom of expression cannot exist where journalists are not safe from persecution and attack. Our government must promote freedom of the press by putting on center stage those countries in which journalists are killed, imprisoned, kidnapped, threatened, or censored.

The US reports on press freedom will join those issued annually by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) [advocacy website] detailing the rankings of press freedom worldwide. In addition to their annual rankings, earlier this month, RSF issued a list of threats to press freedom [JURIST report]. Last month, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ordered the government of Azerbaijan [JURIST report] to secure the immediate release of imprisoned Azeri journalist Eynulla Fatuallyev, who was jailed on what many international organizations claim are spurious charges. Also last month, many rights groups expressed concern [JURIST report] over a Fiji draft bill that would allow the government to sentence journalists to up to five years in prison for publishing controversial content and require them to reveal sources of information. In March, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] urged the Cuban government [JURIST report] to allow more freedom of expression and release those jailed for criticizing the government.

Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) [official website] announced Sunday that the partial recount of the March parliamentary elections will not alter seat allocations [JURIST report] awarded in accordance with the provisional results. The commission held that the original count showed no signs of fraud or major irregularities [JURIST report], and confirmed the two-seat lead of the the Iraqiya coalition of Iyad Allawi [personal website, in Arabic; Al Jazeera profile] over al-Maliki's bloc. Last month, an IHEC review panel nullified the votes of 52 candidates for alleged ties to the Baath Party, including two candidates that had won seats in the Iraqi Council of Representatives [official website], at least one of which coming from Iraqiya. In February, an Iraqi appeals panel ruled [JURIST report] that 28 of the 500 candidates previously banned due to allegations of ties to the Baath Party could stand in the election. The initial ban was characterized by the Iraqi government as illegal and was reversed [JURIST reports] when the panel acknowledged that it did not have to rule on all 500 candidates at once. This came as a reversal of a previous decision, where it held that the candidates could stand in the coming elections, but would have to be cleared of the allegations against them before taking office.

It is an impermissible encroachment into an area of exclusive federal authority and will interfere and conflict with the comprehensive federal immigration system enacted by Congress and implemented through a complex web of federal regulations and policies. According to law enforcement officials in Arizona and elsewhere, SB 1070 will cause widespread racial profiling and will subject many persons of color including countless U.S. citizens, and non-citizens who have federal permission to remain in the United States to unlawful interrogations, searches, seizures and arrests.

Monday's lawsuit joins two others filed [JURIST report] last month challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law. The bill, signed into law [JURIST report] in April by Governor Jan Brewer, has caused intense controversy. Earlier this month, a group of UN human rights experts indicated the measure may violate international standards [JURIST report] that are binding on the US. Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, in Spanish] has strongly criticized [JURIST report] the new law, claiming that it opens the door to intolerance and hatred. US President Barack Obama also criticized the law [JURIST report], and called for federal immigration reform. Under the law, it is designated a crime to be in the country illegally, and immigrants unable to verify their legal status could be arrested and jailed for six months and fined $2,500.

Terrance Graham's sentence guarantees he will die in prison without any meaningful opportunity to obtain release, no matter what he might do to demonstrate that the bad acts he committed as a teenager are not representative of his true character, even if he spends the next half century attempting to atone for his crimes and learn from his mistakes. The State has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a non-homicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law. This the Eighth Amendment does not permit. ... A State need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term.

The court also handed down a per curiam decision on non-release sentences for juveniles in Sullivan v. Graham [opinion, PDF], dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. It is uncertain whether defendant Joe Harris Sullivan, who was 13 when he committed his crime, will benefit from the ruling in the Graham case because Florida courts had turned aside Sullivan's Eighth Amendment challenge for procedural reasons. The Florida courts will now determine whether Sullivan can make a new challenge based on the Supreme Court's decision.

Because Mr. Abbott has direct and regular visitation rights, it follows that he has a ne exeat right under article 49. The Convention recognizes that custody rights can be decreed jointly or alone and Mr. Abbott's ne exeat right is best classified as a "joint right of custody," which the Convention defines to "include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child's place of residence." Mr. Abbott's right to decide [his child's] country of residence allows him to determine the child's place of residence, especially given the Convention's purpose to prevent wrongful removal across international borders. It also gives him "rights relating to the care of the person of the child," in that choosing [his child's] residence country can determine the shape of his early and adolescent years and his language, identity, and culture and traditions. That a ne exeat right does not fit within traditional physical custody notions is beside the point because the Convention's definition of "rights of custody" controls.

The case was brought by petitioner Timothy Abbott after his ex-wife, respondent Jacquelyn Abbott, removed their son to the US from Chile without his permission in 2005. He argued that his ne exeat right gave him joint authority over the child's place of residence and that removing the child from Chile violated this right.

We take these five considerations together. They include: (1) the breadth of the Necessary and Proper Clause, (2) the long history of federal involvement in this arena, (3) the sound reasons for the statute's enactment in light of the Government's custodial interest in safeguarding the public from dangers posed by those in federal custody, (4) the statute's accommodation of state interests, and (5) the statute's narrow scope. Taken together, these considerations lead us to conclude that the statute is a "necessary and proper" means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others. The Constitution consequently authorizes Congress to enact the statute.

US Solicitor General and recent Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan [official profile; JURIST news archive] defended the law [JURIST report] in January stating that it was necessary to protect individuals from people who have the kind of mental illness that is going to cause grave danger to the community. She stated that the federal government is in the best position to prevent this kind of danger, and therefore has a duty to act as a federal custodian. While some of the justices were skeptical of Kagan's position, the majority of the court agreed with her assertion in its opinion. The court did not reach or decide any claim that the statute or its application denies equal protection, procedural or substantive due process, or any other constitutional rights.

Kholi was initially convicted in 1993 and sentenced to 10 life sentences, six running concurrently to four consecutive. He appealed his conviction to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which affirmed the convictions in 1996, but he did not file a federal writ of habeas corpus at that time. He then filed a motion seeking sentence reduction as a form of post-conviction relief, which was denied. Kholi exhausted his procedural options regarding sentence reduction in 2007, at which time he began his appeal for federal writ of habeas corpus, well beyond AEDPA's standard one-year limitation on filing.

Zardari gained control of the presidency after former military leader Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] resigned amid impeachment pressure. In April, Zardari signed into law [JURIST report] the 18th Amendment bill [text, PDF], limiting presidential powers expanded under Musharraf. Under the amendment, which effectively reduces the role of the president to a figurehead, the vast majority of the president's powers will be transferred [AFP report] to the office of the prime minister [official website]. The introduction of the bill came amid controversy over reopening corruption investigations against Zardari. Weeks earlier, Pakistan's attorney general Anwar Mansoor announced his resignation over controversy surrounding a Supreme Court order to investigate corruption allegations [JURIST reports]. Last month, Swiss authorities denied a request [JURIST report] from Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau [official website], refusing to reopen a corruption investigation against Zardari. Aides to Zardari believe that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution, even after the Supreme Court overturned an amnesty law [JURIST report] implemented by Musharraf.

The men were initially accused last July [JURIST report] of stealing state secrets [JURIST news archive] during stalled iron ore price negotiations. China's state secrets law has frequently been criticized for the breadth of action which falls under the doctrine. Last month, the Chinese government revised [JURIST report] its sweeping state secrets law to require Internet and telecommunications companies to inform on customers who share state secrets. In November 2009, rights activist Huang Qi was sentenced to three years in prison [JURIST report] for violating the state secrets law when he discussed how some schools collapsed after the Sichuan province earthquake [BBC backgrounder] in 2008 because of shoddy construction. In June 2007, Human Rights in China [advocacy website] said that the state secrets system in China gives the government virtually complete power to halt the free flow of information [JURIST report], "undermining healthy governance and rule of law."