Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean remains a major problem despite international efforts to curb it. Though the success rate of pirate attacks has dropped [Montreal Gazette report], the attacks continue. Kenya and Seychelles are the only two African countries that have agreed to try the suspected pirates. In July, a court in Seychelles convicted and sentenced [JURIST report] a group of Somali pirates to 10 years in prison following the attempted hijacking of Seychelles coastguard ship. In June, the UN announced the opening of a new high-security courtroom [JURIST report] in Kenya that will hear piracy cases. The announcement came after the UN announced $9.3 million in donations [JURIST report] to help fund piracy courts in Kenya and Seychelles.

As the Court is aware, both the Executive and Legislative branches are actively examining the DADT law and policy. A court should not compel the Executive to implement an immediate cessation of the seventeen year-old policy without regard for any effect such an abrupt change might have on the military's operations, particularly at a time when the military is engaged in combat operations and other demanding military activities around the globe.

Last month, a US military officer filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] seeking to enjoin the military from discharging him under DADT. In May, the House of Representatives [official website] and the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to repeal the policy after President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed to a compromise [JURIST reports] that would prevent the repeal from taking effect until the completion of a review to determine what effects the repeal would have on military effectiveness, soldier retention and family readiness. Also in May, A CNN poll [results, PDF] released found that 78 percent of American adults believe that homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military. In March, Gates announced changes to the enforcement [JURIST report] of the policy to make it more difficult to expel openly gay service members from the military.

RCW 9.46.240 imposes a burden on interstate commerce by walling off the Washington market for Internet gambling from interstate commerce. The extent of this burden is mitigated somewhat. First, the ban does not prevent or hinder Internet gambling businesses from operating throughout the rest of the world. Second, those businesses can easily exclude Washingtonians. If an individual during registration marks his or her location as the state of Washington, the gambling web site can end the registration there.

While online gambling has always been illegal in Washington, the law, passed in 2006, clarified that the Internet was included in the state and federal ban on remote gambling and also increased the charge from a gross misdemeanor to a felony. Courts across the world have been upholding online gambling bans, most recently in Sweden and the Netherlands [JURIST reports]. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act [HR 4411 materials], a federal act that bans banks and financial institutions from intentionally accepting payments from credit cards, checks or electronic fund transfers related to unlawful Internet bets, came into affect earlier this year.

The regulation of immigration is intertwined with the national government's exclusive conduct of foreign policy. "[I]nternational controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war, may arise from real or imagined wrongs to another's subjects inflicted, or permitted, by a government." It is the national government, not the 50 individual States, that must prioritize the various national interests in such areas because "a single State" that inserts itself into immigration enforcement contrary to federal policies and objectives "can, at her pleasure, embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations."

In July, soon after the injunction was issued, the Ninth Circuit denied Arizona's request for expedited appeal [JURIST reports]. The preliminary injunction came at the request of the DOJ, which originally filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the law [JURIST report] in July. Judge Bolton of the district court issued the injunction against provisions of the law requiring the verification of the immigration status of people reasonably suspected of being illegal immigrants, authorizing the warrantless arrest of those police have probable cause to believe have committed an offense that could lead to deportation and requiring noncitizens to carry their registration papers with them at all times. The American Bar Association filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of the DOJ lawsuit, following the submission of another amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Under house arrest, Suu Kyi was previously prohibited from participating in this year's elections. Her detention and previous exclusion from the election have drawn criticism [JURIST report] from the UN and various rights groups. Suu Kyi, who has been in prison or under house arrest for 14 of the past 20 years, will be released in November [JURIST report], according to a government official, likely after the elections have taken place. In April, Suu Kyi filed suit before the Myanmar's Supreme Court to contest the dissolution of her opposition party, National League for Democracy [party website], under a controversial election law [JURIST report]. Additionally, the claim seeks to annul the part of the election law that bars political prisoners [JURIST report] from participating in elections and also requests the establishment of a parliament of lawmakers who won in the 1990 elections.