In April, the US Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] in Salazar v. Buono [Cornell LII backgrounder] that the lower courts were wrong to ban the government from transferring public land containing a religious symbol to a private entity. This is similar to a long-standing proposed solution for the Mount Soledad cross, as the ACLU has suggested moving the cross to a private religious site [ACLU backgrounder, PDF]. In August 2006, then-president George W. Bush signed [JURIST report] a bill [HR 5863 summary; PDF text] into law that transferred ownership of the Mount Soledad cross to the federal government. The cross, which was erected as a Korean War veterans memorial, has been the center of a religious dispute for 21 years, which began when Philip Paulson, a Vietnam veteran and atheist, challenged the cross as a government endorsement of religion prohibited under the First Amendment and filed the original suit in 1989. Paulson died in 2006. Recently, highway memorial crosses and crosses on license plates [JURIST reports] have also been found unconstitutional by federal courts.

Over the past year, Google's privacy practices and policies have been the focus of numerous investigations and complaints. In October, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] announced that it had ended an inquiry [JURIST report] into Google's internal policies and procedures that led to the company inadvertently collecting data on unsecured wireless networks while photographing streetscapes for its Street View maps program. Also in October, Canadian Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart announced that Google was in violation [JURIST report] of the country's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act [text, PDF] (PIPEDA). In August, the South Korean National Police Agency (SKNPA) [official website, in Korean] raided the Google South Korean headquarters [JURIST report] in connection with accusations that the company had been illegally acquiring user data. In July, the Australian Privacy Commissioner announced [JURIST report] that its investigation revealed Google's actions violated the Australia Privacy Act [government backgrounder].

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments [video; JURIST report] in the case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger [case materials] last month. The hearing was divided into two one-hour sessions, with the first section focusing on the issue of standing, and the second focusing on Proposition 8's constitutionality. In August, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay [JURIST report] on Walker's ruling, pending appeal.

It enables the archdiocese to use available funds to compensate all victims/survivors with unresolved claims in a single process overseen by a court, ensuring that all are treated equitably. In addition, by serving as a final call for legal claims against the archdiocese, the proceeding will allow the archdiocese to provide closure and resolution so we can move forward on stable financial ground, focused on our Gospel mission.

Further heightening the financial frustrations of Milkwaukee's diocese is the recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision, which held [opinion text] that insurance companies do not have to contribute to the clergy abuse settlements. Milkwaukee is now the eighth American diocese to file for bankruptcy [NYT report] in response to the clergy sex scandals. Other state dioceses, such as Vermont [JURIST report], have resorted to selling church property and securing loans as means to meet the financial demands of the abuse settlements. Since 2007, in the US alone, the Catholic Church has settled more than 500 cases [JURIST news archive] of abuse for over $900 million.

Before the law was changed in October 2009, Spain allowed the exercise of universal jurisdiction over foreign torture, terrorism and war crimes if the case was not subject to the legal system of the country involved, regardless of its connection to Spain. In June 2009, human rights groups urged [JURIST report] the Spanish government to continue the broad exercise of universal jurisdiction, while some countries, including Israel [Haaretz report], argued [JURIST report] for changes to the practice. Universal jurisdiction has been used by prominent Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon [JURIST news archive] to bring several high-profile cases, including those against Osama bin Laden and former Latin American dictator Augusto Pinochet [JURIST news archives]. Investigations have also proceeded against Israeli actions in Gaza in 2002, detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay and allegations of war crimes and genocide in Rwanda, Tibet, Guatemala and China [JURIST reports].