I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

The health care reform law is the subject of numerous legal challenges across the country. A Virginia appeals court is scheduled to hear challenges to two conflicting lower-court rulings in May—one upholding the legislation and the other invalidating part of it. In December, a judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [official website] ruled that the individual mandate provision is unconstitutional [JURIST report] but left the remainder of the law intact. Earlier that month, a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] a lawsuit challenging a provision of the health care reform law. In October, a federal judge in Michigan ruled [JURIST report] that the law is constitutional under the Commerce Clause as it addresses the economic effects of health care decisions, and that it does not represent an unconstitutional direct tax.

This is a good result for the people of Connecticut. The stipulation means we can proceed to negotiate a settlement of the critical privacy issues implicated here without the need for a protracted and costly fight in the courts, although we are ready to do so if we are unable to come to a satisfactory agreement through negotiation

In November, the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) [official website] launched its own investigation [JURIST report] into whether Google's data collecting violated the Communications Act. In October, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] announced that it had ended an inquiry [JURIST report] into the company's internal policies and procedures that led to the breach. Several other countries have also initiated investigations, including Spain, Australia, Canada, the UK and South Korea [JURIST reports].

Throughout the month of January, the Hungarian government has continued to defend its controversial law in the face of criticism from the Hungarian media and other EU governments. The law officially entered into force earlier in January, and Hungary has said the law conforms to EU norms and contains passages present in similar legislation of other member states. The state secretary for communication, Zoltan Kovacs, has also told national radio that it is unnecessary to change the law [JURIST report]. The Hungarian Parliament [official website, in Hungarian] approved the law [Reuters report] in December, amid protests and criticism.

We are pleased by the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling denying the government's motion to stay its own appeal of a lower court decision declaring 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' unconstitutional. The government should not have appealed in the first place and has been trying ever since to dealy any decision by the Ninth Circuit. Now, the Justice Department has to file its brief in the appeal in a few weeks and it will be very interesting to see how the government will try to argue, as it must, that DADT is constitutional.

The act states that the repeal of DADT will become effective 60 days after the Secretary of Defense [official profile] receives a plan for the repeal's implementation from the Department of Defense [official website] and the plan is approved by Obama, the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff (JCS) [official website]. Until that time, the current DADT policy is to remain in effect. Officials on Friday outlined the Pentagon's plan to eliminate DADT [WP report] and stated that training will occur in three phases: military chaplains, lawyers and civilian personnel; then commanding officers; then "rank and file" troops. The officials did not state how long training would take, but the various military branches are under orders to submit training plans to Defense Secretary Robert Gates by February 4. Since its enactment in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of DADT.

This case represents a historic opportunity for international justice to confront governments who deploy their militaries to use violence against their own citizens. In light of repeated violent crackdowns throughout Thai history, this legal filing represents the first comprehensive attempt to obtain the facts and evidence of what happened during the 2010 massacres, let alone publish them before the public. What we have exposed is not just a botched security operation, but rather a determined policy of extermination and elimination of the Red Shirt movement by the military. These egregious violations require answers and accountability.

In March, the red shirts began protesting the current Thai government [JURIST report] and called for elections. The conflict, leaving more than 80 dead, ended after nearly two months when protesters surrendered to police [JURIST report]. In May, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacywebsite] expressed concern [JURIST report] about the treatment of anti-government protesters detained during the political violence. The group chided the Thai government for enacting an emergency decree giving Thai security forces broad power to arrest individuals without formal charges and hold them in secret detention. Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva [official profile; JURIST news archive] promised an independent investigation [JURIST report] into the clashes between security forces and the red shirts. Abhisit discussed plans for reconciliation aimed at helping the country heal and pledged that due process of law would play an important role in the reconciliation, and that all people would be encouraged to participate in the democratic process. During their protests, the red shirts demanded that Abhisit resign and called for new elections. The Thai government implemented a curfew [JURIST report] in Bangkok and other areas of the country in response to violence that erupted when the leader of the red shirts announced an end to the protests. It was later lifted [JURIST report] in August.

In October, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] said that the ECCC will decide whether to prosecute additional Khmer Rouge officers. Ban spoke to reporters after visiting a genocide museum in Phnom Penh and said that the ECCC would decide if there will be more prosecutions as part of an "international judicial process." Beforehand, while speaking in front of the court, Ban called for those responsible to be held accountable [text] for the tragic events that allegedly caused the death of more than two million civilians between 1975 and 1979. Ban also praised [UN News Centre report] the ECCC's work in pursuing justice, even 30 years after the fall of the regime, and asked for the government's "full cooperation" with the tribunal and "complete respect for its judicial independence." Ban's support followed comments by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen [BBC profile], in which Hun Sen said that the Cambodian government will not allow the UN tribunal to continue prosecuting [JURIST report] former Khmer Rouge officials because the cases disturb the country's ongoing peace process. Hun Sen was formerly a Khmer Rouge officer along with many of his closest allies.

This is not the first time the FBI has faced allegations of illegal activity in the course of its investigations. Last September, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) [official website] released a report [JURIST report] absolving the FBI of charges that agents conducted investigations of domestic groups based on their exercise of First Amendment [text] rights. But the report criticized the FBI for beginning investigations on weak factual predicates, continuing investigations longer than necessary, inappropriately retaining information on file, misclassifying investigations, and probing issues of state, rather than federal, law. Also in 2007, the FBI ignored growing concerns [JURIST report] from its own lawyers and managers about the lawfulness of retrieving thousands of telephone records of US citizens between 2004 to 2006. The DOJ report by Inspector General Glenn Fine [official profile] on Patriot Act investigative practices revealed that the FBI broke and misused laws [JURIST report] in the process of obtaining personal information from telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other business personal records.

Maliki was recently able to form a coalition government granting him a second term as prime minister following another Supreme Court ruling [JURIST reports] that ordered the parties to form a government nine months after the March parliamentary elections [CEIP backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. In November, Iraqi parliamentary officials unanimously approved the power-sharing agreement whereby Maliki and President Jalal Talabani [BBC profile] will remain in power for an additional term, despite tension over governmental power positions for the country's minority Iraqiya alliance leader, Iyad Allawi [official website; Al Jazeera profile]. According to the basic terms of the deal, a new governmental office, the National Council for Strategic Policies, was created and led by Allawi as a check on the prime minister's power. The new agreement marked a significant step for the Iraqi government after months of political unrest following the elections. Key positions of ministers of defense, intelligence, security and interior remain unfilled following the deal.

The referendum was forwarded [press release, in Kazakh] to Kazakhstan's Constitutional Council after the parliament [official website, in Kazakh] unanimously approved [JURIST report] the proposal on January 14. The parliament's vote overruled Nazarbayev's decision earlier in the month to veto the proposed referendum [Reuters report]. Nazarbayev's current term is set to expire in 2012 [AFP report], but, if the referendum had been been approved, he was poised to achieve a 30-year term in office. Supporters of the referendum said that it was necessary [Interfax report] in order to ensure that Nazarbayev can continue to address issues facing the country. They also indicated that continuity of government was necessary for the country's continued growth. Opponents argued that Nazarbayev's political party was attempting to eliminate any political competition. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) [official website] emphasized the need for democratic elections [press release], arguing that the proposed referendum "[did] not offer a genuine choice between political alternatives and would infringe on the opportunity of citizens to hold their representatives accountable and to effectively exercise their right to vote and be elected." In 2007, Nazarbayev approved a constitutional amendment [JURIST report] removing term limits on his own presidency, effectively allowing him to remain president for life.