[T]here are times when exceptional circumstances create an irreconcilable conflict between [liberty, justice, transparency, accountability and national secuirty]. On those rare occasions, we are bound to follow the Supreme Court's admonition that 'even the most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim of privilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that [state] secrets are at stake.' ... Here, further litigation presents an unacceptable risk of disclosure of state secrets no matter what legal or factual theories Jeppesen would choose to advance during a defense. Whether or not Jeppesen provided logistical support in connection with the extraordinary rendition and interrogation programs, there is precious little Jeppesen could say about its relevant conduct and knowledge without revealing information about how the United States does or does not conduct covert operations. ... We ... acknowledge that this case presents a painful conflict between human rights and national security.

The state secrets privilege, which allows the exclusion of evidence based on a government affidavit that such evidence may endanger national security, has been highly criticized by rights groups and others. Julian Sanchez [Cato profile] of the Cato Institute [advocacy website] argued [JURIST comment] last October that Congress should implement state secrets reforms, rather than relying on the DOJ to increase oversight. Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] announced [JURIST report] a number of new state secrets policies seeking to increase government accountability and oversight. Also last year, OpenTheGovernment.org [advocacy website] released a report [text, PDF] examining the privilege and other transparency issues, concluding that the current administration has improved transparency [JURIST report], but more should be done.

The judgments come at a time when the multi-billion euro industry is attempting to break the monopoly held by domestic "game of chance" agencies in many EU member states. In July, the ECJ upheld a Swedish law [JURIST report] that prohibits the promotion of Internet gambling by private operators in other EU member states for profit. The court concluded that Sweden's ban on Internet gambling was in line with EU laws, but that the nation's lottery laws were not allowed to penalize foreign gambling agencies differently from domestic agencies. In June, the ECJ issued two judgments [JURIST report] against UK betting companies Ladbrokes International and Betfair [judgments], upholding Dutch restrictions on Internet gambling. The ECJ ruled in both cases that national regulations on games of chance are compatible with EU law when they are enacted to mitigate addiction and combat fraud.

Critics of the president have called the amendment an abuse of power [AP report] and an attempt to "create a family dynasty." Rajapaksa is a popular figure within Sri Lanka, primarily for his efforts in defeating the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [JURIST news archive]. That conflict has raised numerous questions about the government's actions during military operations, including the treatment of prisoners and civilians. Last month, the Sri Lankan defense minister defended the government's actions during the conflict by taking every effort to avoid civilian casualties [JURIST report] and providing humanitarian relief. In July, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on the Sri Lankan government to improve conditions around UN offices in Colombo after a UN announcement of an international panel to investigate human rights abuses during the war resulted in days of pro-government protests [JURIST reports] near UN offices.

In June 2009, Aza Gazgireyeva, deputy head of the Supreme Court in Russia's Ingushetia province [official website, in Russian; BBC backgrounder] was shot dead [JURIST report] while taking her children to school in the town of Nazran. It is believed that Gazgireyeva may have been killed for her role in investigating an attack [RTTNews report] on Ingush police forces by Chechen militants in 2004. Gazgireyeva's death came one week after the interior minister of the nearby region of Dagestan was shot dead. In April 2008, another deputy head of the Supreme Court in Ingushetia, Khasan Yandiyev, was shot and killed [JURIST report].

In April, 11 Philippines policemen and militia members pleaded not guilty to murder charges for their involvement in the massacre, only one month after a Quezon City court dismissed rebellion charges against 24 people [JURIST reports], including Andal Ampatuan Sr., the leader of a Muslim clan in the Philippines' semi-autonomous southern province of Maguindanao, and four of his family members. The Philippines Department of Justice [official website] had implicated Ampatuan and several of his followers in the November slayings [press release] of 57 campaign workers, journalists and supporters of family political rival Esmael Mangudadatu. The Ampatuans and several of their followers are alleged to have intercepted Mangudadatu's convoy en route to declare his candidacy for governor at a regional election office, ultimately forcing his convoy to a remote hilltop where the Ampatuans' group killed and buried them.

Defendants are incorrect about much of their "parade of horribles" that will supposedly result from this Court's preliminary injunction. ... In this Court's view, a stay would flout the will of Congress, as this Court understands what Congress has enacted in the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so. Congress has mandated that the public interest is served by preventing taxpayer funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos.

Last year, President Barack Obama signed an executive order [JURIST report] permitting federal funding for some forms of embryonic stem cell research. Despite the executive order, Lamberth held that evidence showed that the plaintiffs were substantially likely to prevail based on existing law. The case was originally dismissed for lack of standing last October but was reinstated [JURIST reports] in June with only plaintiffs who claimed their ability to obtain funding for adult stem cell research was harmed by increased competition for federal funds after they were permitted to also be used for embryonic stem cell research. Those new guidelines reversed previous rules that limited government funding of embryonic stem cells to only cell lines that were in existence as of August 2001. Despite pressure from the scientific community, the previous administration refused similar changes to funding guidelines. In 2007, then-president George W. Bush vetoed [JURIST report] the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 [S.5 materials], which was intended to relax funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The administration rejected the bill, saying it would compel taxpayers to support the destruction of human embryos. In 2006, Bush vetoed a previous version [JURIST report] of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which was passed by the Senate to remove restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, saying he would not provide federal funding for stem cell research because many consider the destruction of embryos to be murder.

There are a number of areas of the UK's extradition arrangements which have attracted significant controversy in recent years. The government understands that these are longstanding concerns and the review will therefore focus on five issues to ensure that the UK's extradition arrangements work both efficiently and in the interests of justice.

The fairness of UK extradition laws have been the center of much debate in light of several prominent criminal cases. In July, a UK court blocked the extradition [JURIST report] of former Bosnian president Ejup Ganic [Trial Watch profile] to Serbia to stand trial for alleged war crimes, saying that the extradition request was politically motivated [AFP report] and an abuse of the processes of the court. Earlier this year, May announced that the extradition of alleged hacker Gary McKinnon [BBC profile; advocacy website] to the US would be delayed [JURIST report]. McKinnon was arrested by British police in 2002 and indicted [text, PDF] by US authorities later that year on charges of hacking NASA, Department of Defense, Air Force, Army and Navy computers in violation of US computer laws [18 USC § 1030 text]. At the time, May indicated [Times Online report] she would carefully consider the UK's extradition treaty with the US as well as McKinnon's medical history before she determines if the extradition order should stand.

CSLI from cell phone calls is obtainable under a § 2703(d) order and ... such an order does not require the traditional probable cause determination. ... The [magistrate judge] erred in allowing her impressions of the general expectation of privacy of citizens to transform that standard into anything else. We also conclude that this standard is a lesser one than probable cause. ... Because the statute as presently written gives the [magistrate judge] the option to require a warrant showing probable cause, we are unwilling to remove that option although it is an option to be used sparingly because Congress also included the option of a § 2703(d) order. However, should the [magistrate judge] conclude that a warrant is required rather than a § 2703(d) order, on remand it is imperative that the [magistrate judge] make fact findings and give a full explanation that balances the Governments need (not merely desire) for the information with the privacy interests of cell phone users.

Courts have struggled with how to apply Fourth Amendment protections to modern technology. In August, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that prolonged use of global positioning systems (GPS) to monitor suspects' vehicles violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Knotts [opinion text] allows the use of tracking devices to follow vehicles from one place to another based on a lower expectation of privacy on public roads, the appeals court distinguished the instant case by finding that too much personal information is revealed over longer periods of time. In June, the US Supreme Court [official website] unanimously held [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that, even if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in work-issued electronic devices, that an employer's search of private text messages does not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the search is not excessive and is pursuant to a legitimate work-related purpose. In 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that police must obtain a warrant before searching data stored in a cell phone. In 2005, a federal court in Maryland ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that US law enforcement agents must obtain a warrant before obtaining information from a cell phone service on the location of a cell phone user. The court noted that although the Fourth Amendment does not protect cell phone users who use their phones in public, probable cause is still required because the individual targeted by the search may use the phone from their home, which has clearly established Fourth Amendment protections.

In April, Chief Legal Counsel [official website] to the UN, Under-Secretary-General Patricia O'Brien [official profile, PDF], and Cambodia's Deputy Prime Minister Sok An urged the international community [JURIST report] to provide financial support to the ECCC. The court has thus far yielded one conviction, that of Kaing Guek Eav [case materials], also known as "Duch," who was sentenced [JURIST report] to 35 years in prison for crimes against humanity in July. He later fired his international co-counsel ahead of an appeal [JURIST reports]. The prosecution also appealed [JURIST reports], seeking a longer term than the 19 years to which the court ultimately reduced his sentence.