A securities fraud claim requires both materiality and scienter, and neither of those is established unless the company has knowledge of facts establishing a reliable basis for inferring that the drug itself is the cause of the reported event. Absent information like that, there is neither materiality nor scienter under the securities laws, until there's reliable evidence of a causal link between the product and the event...We have to be very careful about creating a rule through our interpretation of materiality that would require companies in advance to disclose the fact that a baseless, false allegation about the company is going to come out.

In Montana v. Wyoming and North Dakota [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether Wyoming officials breached an agreement between the states by failing to keep consumption of water from the Tongue and Powder rivers within the agreement's limits. Montana and North Dakota contend that Wyoming violated the Yellowstone River Compact [text, DOC; materials], which allocates water rights to the two tributaries of the Yellowstone River, by allowing the construction of water storage facilities and the expansion of irrigation. In 2008, the court appointed [order, PDF; JURIST report] a special master [Cornell LII backgrounder] to investigate and oversee the lawsuit, which was filed directly in the Supreme Court as it has original jurisdiction [Article III, Section 2 text] and exclusive jurisdiction [28 USC 1251 text] over cases in which a state is a party. Counsel for Montana argued that:

First, the plain language of the compact preserves the water supply each State was receiving as of 1950. Second, contrary to the compact's purposes, the master's interpretation would allow individual water users to alter those amounts. And third, the master's policy determinations about efficiency add ambiguity to the principles underlying a century of western water law.

In November, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [official profile] urged Hezbollah not to resort to violence [text, JURIST report] in an attempt to impede the investigation of the STL. In an interview published by the Lebanese Newspaper An-Nahar [official website], Clinton reiterated US support for Lebanon and noted that the work of the STL is "legitimate and necessary." She also stressed the independence of the tribunal and that "no one knows what the Special Tribunal is going to do, who it might indict, or when it might choose to move forward." Clinton's interview followed remarks made by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah [BBC profile], who said he would "cut off the hands" of any person attempting to arrest a Hezbollah member in connection with the murder. Nasrallah has previously called for all Lebanese to boycott the STL [JURIST report] after information surfaced suggesting that the tribunal is set to implicate members of Hezbollah as participants in the assassination of Hariri.

In Lafler v. Cooper [docket; cert. petition, PDF] and Missouri v. Frye [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine how poor legal advice between attorneys and clients regarding plea bargaining should impact subsequent guilty verdicts. In Lafler v. Cooper, Anthony Cooper was convicted of assault with intent to murder for shooting a woman in her thigh and buttocks after his attorney advised him to not take a plea offer in the belief that there could be no finding of the requisite intent. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the attorneys advice was unconstitutional as it amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. In Missouri v. Frye, Galin Frye was offered two deals by prosecutors during proceedings for driving with a revoked license, but Frye's attorney never informed his client about the offers and Frye pleaded guilty. The Missouri Court of Appeals held that the attorney's failure to inform his client about the plea offers amounted to unconstitutional ineffective assistance of counsel.

In United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether attorney-client privilege allows for the United States to deny discovery requests for communications between the United States and its attorneys when those communications concern management of an Indian trust and there was no claim of a specific competing interest. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the privilege did not apply and upheld the lower court's order of production.

In Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether the First Amendment allows states to prevent government officials from voting on matters in which they have or appear to have a personal conflict. The Nevada Supreme Court, citing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [opinion, PDF], held [opinion, PDF] that preventing an official from casting such a vote violated the First Amendment because voting by an elected public officer on public issues is protected speech.

In Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether state laws restricting or preventing the sale of nonpublic prescription data to drug companies for marketing purposes without the prescriber's consent is a violation of First Amendment commercial speech. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, also citing Citzens United, held [opinion, PDF] that the law was an unconstitutional regulation of commercial speech.

Lastly, in McNeill v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine how retroactive sentencing laws affect the definition of a "serious drug offense" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) [18 U.S.C. section 924]. Clifton McNeill was arrested in 2007 after police discovered a firearm and 3.1 grams of cocaine during a search incident to arrest for eluding a traffic stop. In light of previous drug convictions in 1992 and 1995, McNeill was convicted under the ACCA. The previous convictions and sentencing structure met the definitions of a "serious drug offense" at the time they were committed, however, the statutory sentences for those offenses were reduced in later years and do not currently meet the ACCA definition. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the ACCA still applied regardless of the subsequent statutory changes.

[The amendment], if enacted, will create situations where a same-sex couple contacting a marriage commissioner for the purpose of getting married will be told by the commissioner that he or she will not provide the service requested. This is not a merely theoretical concern. ... Both the Grandfathering Option and the Comprehensive Option will have the effect of drawing a distinction based on sexual orientation. ... Gay and lesbian individuals will be treated differently than other people who wish to be married. The differential treatment will be negative and will flow directly from their sexual orientation.

Since Canada legalized the marriage of same-sex couples [JURIST report] in 2005, the issue has been the topic of popular debate. Despite resistance to the law, in 2006, Canadian law makers refused [JURIST report] to reconsider the decision, calling the matter settled. In 2004, a Saskatchewan court found [JURIST report] that a federal prohibition on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, making such marriages legal in the province. In 2005, Canada was only the fourth country to recognize same-sex marriage. There are now more than ten countries that recognize same-sex marriages.

Sotoudeh has worked on several high-profile cases. She was the lawyer for Arash Rahmanipour, who was arrested for his role in the post-election protests on charges of mohareb, or being an enemy of God. Rahmanipour was executed [JURIST report] in January 2010. Sotoudeh also represented Isa Saharkhiz [Iran Press profile], a well-known press activist who was sentenced [JURIST report] to four years in prison in 2006 for publishing articles against the constitution and offending the state media. Iran continues to be scrutinized internationally for human rights violations. In March, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] criticized the state of human rights in Iran while presenting her annual report. Pillay condemned[JURIST report] Iran for the "arbitrary arrest" of, and "harsh sentences, including capital punishment" given to, individuals involved in protests following the presidential elections.

Pakistan's blasphemy laws were introduced in 1986 as a way of protecting Muslim beliefs from insults. In response to repeated calls for repeal, Pakistani Federal Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti [official profile] has said the laws may be amended to prevent misuse, but they will not be repealed. Advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch [JURIST report], as well as LHC advocate Saroop Ijaz [JURIST op-ed] have called for the laws to be repealed. In February, Bhatti said that he has been speaking to various political parties [JURIST report] in Pakistan and that his government is committed to doing away with laws [AFP report] that are discriminatory to minorities. Bhatti made the comments at an interview with the AFP in Washington, DC, where he met with various lawmakers and officials during the National Prayer Breakfast. Bhatti discussed a proposed change in the law that would force judges to investigate blasphemy cases before they are docketed.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case [JURIST report] in October to determine whether tribal sovereign immunity from suit bars taxing authorities from foreclosing to collect lawfully imposed property taxes and whether the ancient Oneida reservation in New York was disestablished or diminished. The case was the most recent in a series of disputes between the Oneida Indian Nation and New York state authorities over the question of state and local taxes. The Supreme Court had previously ruled against [opinion text] the tribe's claims of immunity over tribal lands that were sold in the nineteenth century and repurchased by the tribe within the previous decade.

President Barack Obama directed that the investigation into the shooting be conducted [press releases] by the FBI, coordinated by Mueller. Authorities arrested Loughner on Saturday and are searching for a possible accomplice [press release]. Due to the currently polarized political climate, many suspect that the attack was politically motivated [ABC report]. Giffords received harsh criticism in Arizona for her vote for the health care reform law [HR 3590; JURIST news archive] and was among those members of Congress who reported threats or vandalism in 2010. Giffords also was an outspoken critic of Arizona's controversial immigration law [SB 1070 text; JURIST news archive]. Ultimately, a clear motive into the shootings has yet to be identified.