In United States v. Tinklenberg [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether time taken to process a pretrial motion is excluded from the maximum 70-day deadline allowed under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 [18 USC § 3161(h)(1)(D) text], or whether the time is excluded only if the pretrial motion postpones, or is expected to postpone, the trial. Jason Louis Tinklenberg was convicted of making methamphetamine and appealed his conviction arguing that his trial started after the deadline required by federal statute. The US Court of the Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that Tinklenberg's indictment should have been dismissed because the postponed date of the trial violated the Speedy Trial Act. Counsel for the government argued that the court should uphold precedent, saying that "[f]or more than 30 years, the courts of appeals had uniformly held that the exclusion applies automatically upon the filing of any motion, regardless of its effect on the trial schedule." Counsel for Tinklenberg argued that the court should use the "ordinary meaning" of the language in the statute, finding that the trial was delayed unlawfully.

In Stok & Associates v. Citibank [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) [9 USC §§ 1-14], a party should be required to demonstrate prejudice after the opposing party waived its contractual right to arbitrate by participating in litigation, in order for such waiver to be binding and irrevocable. Stok & Associates filed suit against Citibank, which sought to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in their contract. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found [opinion, PDF] that Citibank had not waived its right to arbitration. There is also a circuit split on this issue.

The state has an obligation to protect the rights to life, liberty and security. ... Protection of civilians should always be the paramount consideration in maintaining order and the rule of law. The authorities should immediately cease such illegal acts of violence against demonstrators. Widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity.

The situation in Libya has escalated over days of continued protests and violent suppression by security forces. On Monday, Saif al-Islam, son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi [BBC profile], announced in a televised address [video] following several days of protests that the Libyan government is considering adopting a constitution [JURIST report] and allowing greater freedoms. The protests began last week following those that have occurred throughout the Middle East and North Africa [BBC backgrounder], resulting in the resignations of Tunisian president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak [JURIST reports]. Protesters have demanded Gaddafi's resignation and government reform since the start of protests in Benghazi, Libya's second city, which was reported to be largely under the control of demonstrators [UKPA report] following the retreat of police and military forces and reported defections by military personnel over the weekend. On Thursday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] called for an end to violence against protesters [JURIST report] in Bahrain and elsewhere, referencing recent attempts to quell protests sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa.

Last month, Thailand's red shirt pro-democracy movement petitioned [press release] the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] to launch a preliminary investigation [JURIST report] into whether the government committed crimes against humanity during the protests last spring. In August, a group of opposition leaders pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to charges of terrorism in connection with the recent political violence, as the government partially lifted the state of emergency that has been in place since May.

The "even though" clause clarifies the word that precedes it. It delineates the preventative measures that a vaccine manufacturer must have taken for a side-effect to be considered "unavoidable" under the statute. Provided that there was proper manufacture and warning, any remaining side effects, including those resulting from design defects, are deemed to have been unavoidable. State-law design-defect claims are therefore preempted.

This is one of many court cases that have stemmed from the use of vaccines. In September, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision issued last year by the US Court of Federal Claims finding insufficient evidence [JURIST reports] to establish a link between childhood vaccines and autism in three test cases. The decision focused on the case of 15-year-old Michelle Cedillo, who received the MMR vaccine [NIH backgrounder] when she was 15 months old and was subsequently diagnosed with autism and various gastrointestinal disorders. Michelle's parents alleged that Thimerosal [FDA backgrounder], the mercury-based preservative found in Michelle's MMR vaccine, damaged her immune system, rendering her unable to defend against the measles virus contained in the vaccine, which spread throughout her body and caused her current problems. The family sought compensation under the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [HRSA backgrounder]. The court found petitioners were unable to establish that the MMR vaccine was a substantial factor in bringing about Michelle's injuries and that the lower court did not err in placing this burden on petitioners. The court also affirmed the lower court's finding that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) [official website] experts proved petitioners' laboratory results establishing the connection between the vaccines and illnesses were "severely flawed."

[T]ax exemptions are an obvious form of tax discrimination. ... It is hardly self-evident why Congress would prohibit a State from charging a railroad a 4% tax and a competitor a 2% tax, but allow the State to charge the railroad a 4% tax and the competitor nothing. The latter situation would frustrate the purposes of the Act even more than the former.

At oral argument [JURIST report], the justices attempted to determine when a tax exemption amounts to "discrimination" within the meaning of the 4-R Act. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the narrow question of whether a tax exemption could ever amount to discrimination does not require a discussion of formulating some basis for determining whether the particular tax exemption is in fact discriminatory.

Tymoshenko's government was dissolved last March after she narrowly lost the presidential election to Viktor Yanukovych [official website, in Ukrainian]. The current combined case against her is not the first time she has been prosecuted. Last May, prosecutors reopened a separate criminal investigation [JURIST report] into allegations that Tymoshenko attempted to bribe Supreme Court judges. The probe was initiated in May 2004 and then suspended [JURIST report] in June 2005. Last February, Tymoshenko withdrew a lawsuit [JURIST reports] filed in the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine claiming that the country's presidential election was corrupt. Tymoshenko had alleged that widespread voter fraud allowed Yanukovych to win the election.

Last May, the ICTY appeals division upheld a 2009 contempt verdict [JURIST reports] against Seselj for revealing the identities of other witnesses that were supposed to remain confidential. Seselj's war crimes trial resumed in early 2010, after being delayed [JURIST reports] for nearly a year over fears that witnesses were being intimidated. He is charged with 14 counts of crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war. The ICTY had previously stripped Seselj of his right to defend himself after he failed to appear in court, despite an earlier appeals court ruling that he could represent himself [JURIST reports] provided he did not engage in courtroom behavior that "substantially obstruct[ed] the proper and expeditious proceedings in his case." Seselj is accused of establishing rogue paramilitary units affiliated with the SRS, which are believed to have massacred and otherwise persecuted Croats and other non-Serbs during the Balkan conflict.