In September, 13 state attorneys general joined in an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] urging the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a federal district court decision [JURIST report] striking down California's ban on same-sex marriage. The brief argued that the district court exceeded its authority because a federal court cannot "reorder this foundational legal and social institution." In July, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle (R) [official website] vetoed a bill [JURIST report] that would have allowed same-sex civil unions. In contrast, several jurisdictions in the US have legalized same-sex marriage. In March, DC became the sixth US jurisdiction to allow same-sex marriages, joining Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts [JURIST reports].

First, the plain language of Exemption 2 dictates an extremely narrow category of materials, those related solely to internal personnel policies and rules. Second, even if you look beyond the plain language and look to the legislative history, the legislative history is focused, and the additional legislative history from the House is focused, only on law enforcement or investigatory materials, items that were covered through the 1986 amendments to FOIA, making any additional judicial High 2 unnecessary. The third point: Because of FOIA's purpose, if you find that the language, the plain language, is not clear or if you find that the legislative history isn't sufficient, then the focus must be on an interpretation that supports disclosure, not secrecy. And finally, Congress in enacting FOIA conducted the balancing. It reserved for it, itself, the authority to add to or expand FOIA through Exemption 3. It did not leave agency discretion available for the agencies to decide what documents they can provide or not.

Also Wednesday, the court heard arguments in Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report] on whether the Eleventh Amendment [text] prevents an independent state agency from bringing an action in federal court against state officials to remedy a violation of federal law. The state of Virginia participates in a federal program designed to detect abuse and neglect at state-run medical facilities. The petitioner is the state agency given oversight over the medical facilities and is seeking access to records relevant to the deaths of two individuals who were residents of the state-run facilities. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the suit by the petitioner was barred under the Eleventh Amendment and did not fall within the Ex parte Young [opinion text] doctrine.

[Plaintiffs] fail to allege how any payments required under the Act, whether fines, fees, taxes, or the cost of the policy, would be used to fund abortion. Indeed, the Act contains strict safeguards at multiple levels to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services beyond those in cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered. Furthermore, at least one plan that does not cover non-excepted abortion services will be offered for enrollment through each of the state health benefit exchanges, as required by the Act. Moreover, the Act specifically allows plans in the exchanges to decline to cover all abortion services whatsoever, including excepted abortion services.

The health care reform law is the subject of numerous legal challenges across the country. In October, a federal judge in Florida denied a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] a lawsuit alleging violations of Article I and the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution [text], committed by levying a tax without regard to census data, property or profession, and for invading the sovereignty of the states. In August, a federal judge allowed a similar lawsuit filed in Virginia to proceed on narrow grounds [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], addressing only subject matter jurisdiction [Cornell LII backgrounder] and the legal sufficiency of the complaint.

Recent news reports form Spain have stated that Urrutikoetxea is seeking to regain his leadership in the ETA in the upcoming weeks. He has stated that he is willing to talk with Spanish authorities and has been in communication with Arnaldo Otegi, a former leader of Batasuna [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], the political wing of ETA. In March, the Spanish National Court [official website, in Spanish] sentenced [JURIST report] Otegi to two years in prison for promoting terrorism. The court held that comments made by Ortegi in a 2005 speech praised the terrorist acts committed by other ETA members. Otegi compared his imprisoned associates to South African leader Nelson Mandela [ANC backgrounder]. The court criticized the comparison because, unlike the ETA, which is blamed for more than 800 deaths, Mandela was nonviolent. The court also disqualified Otegi from holding public office for 16 years. Otegi faces additional charges that could result in up to 30 years in prison.

Monsanto escaped an injunction [JURIST report] in a similar case decided in June by the US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive]. The case arose over an injunction against the planting of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready alfalfa," pending an environmental impact statement (EIS) under NEPA. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had held [opinion, PDF] that NEPA plaintiffs are specially exempt from the requirement of showing a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain an injunction, affirming the nationwide injunction. Justice Samuel Alito, writing the opinion of the court, reversed the circuit court's ruling, stating that NEPA violations, absent unusual circumstances, are not exempt from the standard four-factor test to determine the availability of injunctive relief. The test requires the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury, adequate alternative remedies are not available, a remedy of equity is warranted and it serves the public interest. Alito concluded that the respondent plaintiffs were unable to show that a partial deregulation would pose any appreciable risk of environmental harm if the scope of the regulation is sufficiently limited.

Suspects connected to the Mumbai terror attacks continue to face arrest and prosecution. India's National Investigation Agency (NIA) [official website] announced [press release, PDF; JURIST report] in October that it has secured INTERPOL [official website] red notices [official backgrounder] for five Pakistani citizens, including two military officials, for their suspected involvement in the attacks. A month earlier, the Bombay High Court [official website] allowed an appeal by Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab [NDTV profile], the lone gunman to survive the three-day siege of Mumbai. Kasab, a Pakistani national, filed the appeal in June after he was convicted in May for his role in the terrorist attack and sentenced to death after the prosecution sought the death penalty [JURIST reports]. Two alleged Indian accomplices tried with Kasab were acquitted on all charges of helping to plan the attacks.

Human Rights Watch takes no position on Sharia law or on provisions that regulate the internal workings of Islam. We are concerned, however, that two of the laws—one prohibiting unmarried individuals of different sexes from being together in certain circumstances, the other imposing public dress requirements on Muslims—violate Indonesia's constitutional protections for basic rights as well as international human rights law which Indonesia has accepted as legally binding.

Human rights groups that have been pushing for reform in Indonesia. In October, the Indonesian Constitutional Court [official website, in Bahasa] overturned [press release, in Bahasa; JURIST report] a law that has allowed the Indonesian government to ban books it deemed controversial for nearly 50 years. The court found [Jakarta Post report] that giving the Attorney General [official website, in Bahasa] the authority to ban books violated the Indonesian Constitution [text] by denying basic human rights without due process of the law. In June, HRW urged [JURIST report] the Indonesian government to release secession activists and adhere to international standards of free speech. In April, the Constitutional Court upheld [JURIST report] a controversial anti-blasphemy law enacted in 1965 by the first Indonesian president. The court rejected the legal challenge raised by a coalition of human rights groups and social activists supporting the Wahid Organization, a civil organization that advocates for religious pluralism in Indonesia.

By Congress placing a seal of approval on this settlement, a monumental step has been taken to remove a stain on our national honor, and create a better future for Indians as our government begins to make some amends for grave past injustices. This unprecedented Congressional action paves the way for a brighter and better relationship with government. There is still much to be done in trust reform and improving trustee performance by the Department of Interior, but this huge step makes those other steps possible. While the money is not as much as we believe we are entitled to...the settlement will be recognized by Native People as an acknowledgment by the federal government that it wronged them by its mismanagement of Indian money and Indian lands.

In October, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] extended the deadline [JURIST report] for Congress to approve the Indian Trust settlement to January 7, 2011, marking the seventh time [case materials] an extension had been granted since the settlement was reached [JURIST report] in December 2009. The settlements arose from two cases. Cobell originally filed litigation in 1996 related to DOI's alleged mismanagement of the Indian Trust, which was established by Congress in 1887 to hold proceeds from government-arranged leases to Indian lands. Although it was determined that the US government had not engaged in fraud, it was held that DOI unreasonably delayed accounting of the trust. In 1999, black farmers alleged in Pigford v. Glickman [BFAA backgrounder] that they were being denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait longer for loan approval than were non-minority farmers. The USDA and Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced a $1.2 billion settlement [JURIST report] in February.

Today's report confirms that a strong majority of our military men and women and their families-more than two thirds-are prepared to serve alongside Americans who are openly gay and lesbian. This report also confirms that, by every measure-from unit cohesion to recruitment and retention to family readiness-we can transition to a new policy in a responsible manner that ensures our military strength and national security. And for the first time since this law was enacted 17 years ago today, both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly endorsed ending this policy.

Last week, US Air Force Major Margaret Witt, who was discharged under DADT, became the first openly gay person to serve in the US military [JURIST report] after the Obama administration did not pursue a stay of a previous federal court decision ordering her reinstatement. In November, Gates called on the 112th Congress to repeal DADT [JURIST report]. In October, Gates issued a memorandum limiting the authority to discharge openly gay service members [JURIST report] to five senior Department of Defense officials. In September, a federal judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Washington [official website] ordered [JURIST report] a US Air Force officer to be reinstated after being previously discharged under DADT. Also in September, the US Senate [official website] rejected a cloture motion [JURIST report] on a defense appropriations bill that would have repealed the policy. Since the enactment of DADT in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of the policy.