In June, Canadian police reported that members of the Jewish faith were the most frequently targeted religious group [JURIST report] in Canada. The report, which also detailed a 35 percent increase in hate crimes [materials] from 2007 to 2008, found that two-thirds of religiously motivated hate crimes were committed against members of the Jewish faith, constituting a 42 percent rise over the previous year. During 2008, police reported 1,036 total hate crimes, with 55 percent motivated by race, 26 percent motivated by religion and 16 percent motivated by sexual orientation, an increase from the 785 total hate crimes reported [materials] for 2007. Increases occurred among all groups, with the number of hate crimes related to sexual orientation more than doubling. In addition to the increase in the number of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation, the report also found that almost 75 percent of these crimes were violent and that men were overwhelmingly the targets of the violence. Hate crimes based on race were violent 38 percent of the time while those based on religion were violent 25 percent of the time. Blacks were the most frequently targeted racial group.

Similar concerns over civil liberties violations arose last fall, following the Pittsburgh G-20 summit [JURIST news archive]. In December, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU-PA) [official website] and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) [advocacy websites] announced they were extending and continuing a lawsuit [JURIST report] against the City of Pittsburgh for allegedly violating the rights of two protest groups during the September summit. According to the amended complaint, Pittsburgh police officers repeatedly violated the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment [text] rights of Seeds of Peace and Three Rivers Climate Convergence (3RCC) [advocacy websites]. The ACLU-PA and CCR originally filed the lawsuit [JURIST report] in September. Both groups claimed that police searched and seized members of the groups and their property and that police retaliated against members for exercising their right to free speech. Seeds of Peace also claimed that police detained their bus without cause, illegally searched and impounded the bus and conducted a warrantless raid on the property on which the bus was being stored. Pittsburgh has also been criticized for its handling of other protesters. The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) [advocacy website] questioned [JURIST report] the methods used by police during protests in the Lawrenceville and Oakland [JURIST reports] sections of Pittsburgh and also noted that individual officers lacked visible identification, frustrating the work of NLG and ACLU legal observers.

In June, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) [official website] launched an investigation [JURIST report] into allegations made by HTC accusing Apple of patent infringement on its portable electronic devices. HTC filed a complaint with the ITC in May [JURIST report] claiming that Apple had infringed on five of HTC's patents, and is seeking an exclusion order and a cease and desist order, which would ban Apple's importation of iPhones, iPads and iPods. In March, Apple filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] against HTC in the US District Court for the District of Delaware [official website] alleging that several of HTC's products infringe 10 patents owned by Apple. Apple also filed a complaint [text, PDF] against HTC with the ITC claiming infringement of 10 other Apple patents, seeking to bar the importation of infringing devices. Apple has recently been involved in numerous legal actions over alleged patent infringement. In October, Finnish telecommunications company Nokia [corporate website] filed suit [JURIST report] against Apple alleging that Apple infringed 10 of its patents since the first iPhone was released in 2007. The patents cover wireless data transmission, speech coding, and security/encryption.

Under the proposed legislation, approved [JURIST report] by the Italian Senate [official website, in Italian] last month, a three-judge panel would be required to grant a wiretap, and the wiretap would only be valid for a two-month period. Any publication reporting on the contents of a wiretap during an ongoing investigation would be subject to fines of USD $540,000, and the individual journalist reporting the information could also be held liable. Supporters of the bill claim it is necessary in order to protect privacy and curb the excessive use of wiretaps [NYT report]. The bill has been widely criticized [WSJ report] by members of the media and prosecutors who contend the bill is aimed at protecting high-ranking officials, including Berlusconi, who are often the focus of wiretap investigations. Opponents also contend that the bill would weaken the ability of the judiciary to conduct investigations, including investigations into organized crime. The bill must now be approved by Italy's lower house of parliament before it becomes law.

Kaing is the first of eight ex-Khmer Rouge officials expected to be tried before the ECCC, which recently announced the establishment of an independent counselor to oversee anti-corruption efforts [JURIST reports]. In August, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] asked the ECCC to determine the scope of its prosecutions [JURIST report] "to thwart growing perceptions that court decisions are directed by the government." In February 2009, HRW warned that ECCC trials were in danger of being tainted for their failure to follow fair trial standards, and, in January 2009 a Cambodian court agreed to hear a corruption case [JURIST reports] involving two ECCC judges.

Human Rights Watch has investigated numerous instances in which the undocumented status of individuals has exacerbated the impact of human rights abuses, including serious violent crime. The fact that they are undocumented too often prevents them from obtaining the redress to which they are entitled under both US and international human rights law. And because undocumented persons are less likely to report abuses, perpetrators are more likely to commit crimes against them and to escape being brought to justice.

Earlier this month, US President Barack Obama [official website] reiterated the need for comprehensive immigration reform [JURIST report] and called on members of Congress to work in a bipartisan fashion to pass immigration legislation. Obama acknowledged the frustration that has led states, like Arizona, to enact their own immigration laws. Obama called these laws "ill conceived" and "divisive" and indicated that they are unenforceable. He stated that reform should include holding businesses responsible for hiring and exploiting undocumented workers, a path to citizenship for people living in the US illegally and a path to citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The US Department of Justice [official website] on Tuesday filed suit [JURIST report] in the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] seeking to permanently enjoin the state's new immigration law before it takes effect July 29, claiming the law is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause [text] of the US Constitution. Last week, the American Bar Association (ABA) [official website] filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] urging the federal district court in Arizona to block the enforcement of the state's immigration law. The brief was filed in support of a class-action lawsuit [JURIST report] led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website]. In May, a group of UN human rights experts said that Arizona's immigration law could violate international standards [JURIST report] that are binding on the US.

Several investigations have recently been launched into Google's unencrypted data collections to determine whether the Internet giant's practices have violated privacy laws. Last month, UK the Metropolitan Police [official website] initiated an investigation [JURIST report] in response to a complaint filed [JURIST reports] by Privacy International (PI) [advocacy website], which claims that the information gathered in an independent audit [text, PDF] published by Google earlier this month proves that company's interception of unencrypted data was not inadvertent [JURIST report] and should lead to prosecution. Earlier that week Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal [official profile] announced that he will lead a multistate investigation [JURIST report] against Google and requested additional detailed information from the company on its data harvesting procedures. Additionally, Canada launched an investigation [JURIST report] in June to determine whether Google has violated the country's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act [text, PDF], which applies to private organizations that collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities. Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland have also asked Google to retain data collected in those respective nations.

Ugandan officials arrested another highly-sought genocide suspect last October when they apprehended [JURIST report] former Hutu intelligence chief Idelphonse Nizeyimana [BBC profile; case materials]. Nizeyimana, who has pleaded not guilty [JURIST report], was charged [indictment, PDF] with four counts of genocide, or, in the alternative, complicity in genocide and crimes against humanity, and is still awaiting trial. Nizeyimana was one of four top accused sought by the ICTR in order to complete its mission. Last month, the UN Security Council [official website] extended the terms [press release] for ICTR trial judges until December 31, 2011, and for appellate judges until December 31, 2012, or until they complete their cases. In March 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon pledged his ongoing support [JURIST report] for the ICTR and stressed that the international community must continue to combat genocide. The ICTR was established to try genocide suspects for crimes occurring during the 1994 Rwandan conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in which approximately 800,000 people, primarily Tutsis, died.

By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning.

Clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment.

The Obama administration has said the DOMA is discriminatory but has maintained that it is nonetheless constitutional. The DOJ moved to dismiss [JURIST report] the Massachusetts lawsuit in November, stating that it is the policy of the government to support federal statutes as long as there is a reasonable argument in favor of their constitutionality. Massachusetts, the first state to recognize gay marriage, initiated the suit [JURIST report] against the federal government last July. The DOJ also sought to dismiss [JURIST report] the GLAD case on the basis that Congress has the authority to pass legislation defining marriage. The Obama administration has extended some federal benefits [JURIST report] to same-sex couples, including allowing domestic partners to be added to insurance programs, to use medical facilities, and to be included in family size and house allocation considerations. Last month, Obama ordered executive agencies to expand [JURIST report] federal childcare subsidies and services and travel and relocation payments to the same-sex partners of federal employees and their children.

Thursday's order brings the number of successful Guantanamo habeas petitions to 37, with 14 won by the government. On Wednesday, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] released a partially redacted opinion [JURIST report] denying habeas relief to Guantanamo detainee Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al Odah [JURIST news archive]. Last month, the circuit court denied a habeas petition [JURIST report] filed by Guantanamo detainee Adham Mohammed Ali Awad, unanimously upholding the district court's decision [JURIST report] despite the petitioner's "gossamer thin" connection to armed conflict. Most of the nearly 200 detainees remaining at Guantanamo are Yemeni, and many detainees have been transferred back to Yemen. In January, the US government suspended transfers [JURIST report] of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Yemen [JURIST news archive] after it was revealed that the so-called "Christmas Day Bomber" Umar Farouk Adbulmutallab [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], received al Qaeda training in Yemen.

Last week, the US House of Representatives [official website] approved a bill [HR 5503 materials] that would increase compensation [JURIST report] for injured workers and victims' families that have filed claims against BP as a result of the oil spill. Calls for criminal and civil actions have been mounting against BP as evidence of the oil company's lack of proper compliance with regulations has come out. Two lawsuits were recently filed [JURIST report] against BP alleging violations of the Rackteer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) [18 USC § 1961 et seq.]. Last month, US President Barack Obama [official website] announced the government's latest plan of action for tackling the oil spill, which includes a $20 billion compensation fund [JURIST reports] subsidized by BP. The escrow fund [government backgrounder] will be used to indemnify the workers and business owners harmed as a result of the oil spill. The announcement also included a long-term restoration plan and prevention of future disasters [JURIST report] through stronger regulation. More than 120 million gallons of oil have leaked already from the rig's broken pipe and has now surpassed the Exxon Valdez [JURIST news archive] as the worst oil spill in US history.