The bill, similar to a recent Nebraska act [JURIST report] based on a fetal-pain guideline, was formulated partly in reaction to the assassination of late-term abortion provider doctor George Tiller [BBC report], who practiced out of Wichita. Kansas' bills are the first major actions on abortion in the US in 2011, although several state legislatures are considering similar measures. In December the Alaska Superior Court upheld a parental consent notification law, whereas in November, Colorado voters rejected an amendment [JURIST reports] that would have granted fetuses a "personhood" status, effectively banning abortion. In June, then-Florida governor Charlie Crist vetoed a bill [JURIST report] that would have required women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound or listen to a detailed description of the fetus before the procedure would be performed. Oklahoma lawmakers approved a bill [JURIST report] in May requiring women seeking an abortion to complete a questionnaire containing information on marital status, reason for seeking the abortion and whether the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. This followed laws passed the month before [JURIST report], prohibiting abortions performed because of the gender of the fetus, protecting medical employees who refuse to participate in procedures such as abortion based on religious beliefs, and regulating the use of RU-486, or mifepristone, a chemical used in abortion procedures.

Lubanga is accused of war crimes for allegedly recruiting child soldiers to fight in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 2002-2003. His trial began in January 2009 but was halted soon after when one of the child witnesses recanted his testimony [JURIST report] that Lubanga had recruited him for the militia. The prosecution concluded its case [JURIST report] last July after presenting 22 weeks of testimony. Lubanga maintains he is innocent [JURIST report] of the charges against him. He became the first war crimes defendant to appear before the ICC, formed in 2002, after he was taken into custody [JURIST report] in March 2006.

Unlike Caperton, where the Supreme Court reversed the self-judged view of a single state court judge, there is no review procedure for recusal decisions by Supreme Court justices. Individual justices rule themselves on motions to recuse, or decide sua sponte to recuse in cases where no motion is filed. No written opinion is required in either situation. The opacity and non-reviewability of this process erodes public confidence in the integrity of the Court. The fundamental principle that "no man may be a judge in his own case" was articulated by Lord Coke in the seventeenth century, yet inexplicably we still allow Supreme Court justices to be the sole judge of themselves on recusal issues.

Wednesday's letter comes amid a wave of criticism for the court as a series of politically charged and divisive decisions has been followed by accusations of ethically troubling activities by justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito [Oyez profiles]. Of particular focus have been questions surrounding Thomas and Scalia's relationships with conservative businessmen David and Charles Koch, owners of Koch Industries [corporate website], a multibillion dollar company with large oil, gas and paper operations which is involved in hundreds of cases currently before federal judges. In January, Common Cause [advocacy group] petitioned [text] the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] to investigate the justices' relationship with the company and the impact it may have had on the court's controversial 5-4 decision [text, PDF; JURIST report] in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [materials] last year. Thomas has also fallen under fire for his wife's founding of Liberty Consulting [corporate website], a right-leaning political consultancy, shortly after leaving her position as the head of Liberty Central [NYT report], a conservative website with ties to the Tea Party movement.

In June of last year, federal prosecutors filed additional charges [superseding indictment, PDF] against four members of the "Christian warrior" militia, Hutaree, alleging possession of machine guns and unregistered rifles [JURIST report], as well as use of firearms during a violent crime. Nine members of the militia were originally indicted [JURIST report] in March on charges of seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, teaching the use of explosive materials, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence in connection with a plan to kill Michigan law enforcement officers. Four members of the militia, including one of the men named in the new indictment, were released on bail [JURIST report] one month earlier. Militia groups such as the Hutaree are reportedly on the rise in the US. A recent report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center [advocacy website] suggests that a lack of regulation on the Internet [JURIST report] is fueling this increased prevalence. A 2009 report [JURIST comment] by SPLC noted that these groups are making a comeback [JURIST report] after declining in number for several years. The SPLC said that such groups are generally anti-tax, anti-immigration, and increasingly racially motivated since the election of the country's first African-American president, Barack Obama. The SPLC also warned that these groups could soon pose a security risk to the country, quoting one official as saying "[a]ll it's lacking is a spark. I think it's only a matter of time before you see threats and violence."

Earlier this month, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D) signed a bill [JURIST report] legalizing same-sex civil unions in the state. The "Illinois Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act," seeks to provide "adequate procedures for the certification and registration of a civil union" as well as to provide "persons entering into a civil union with the obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses." Additionally, it will allow religious institutions within the state to choose whether to observe or officiate the union. Opponents fear that this bill will move Illinois closer to legalizing same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] and threaten the sanctity of marriage. The new law is set to take effect on June 1. In contrast, last month the Wyoming Senate voted 20-10 in favor of a constitutional amendment [JURIST report] that would prevent the state from recognizing same-sex marriages from any jurisdiction. The decision, which was split down party lines, will advance to the state House of Representatives, where it needs a two-thirds vote to succeed. If approved there, it will need to be signed by Governor Matt Mead (R) and then appear as a referendum item on the 2012 ballot. The following day, the House Judiciary Committee also voted 5-4 [Star-Tribune report] to defeat House Bill 150, which would have recognized civil unions in the state.

Today's vote was a key step in the legislative process. I will continue to work with my fellow lawmakers to send a clear message that Indiana will no longer be a sanctuary for people who are in our state and country illegally because of our federal government's failure to act on illegal immigration. It's time that we put an end to press one for English and two for Spanish in our state. We also must remove the handcuffs from our law enforcement by providing them with the tools and training necessary to identify individuals in our country illegally and then transfer them to federal custody.

Earlier this week, the Utah House of Representatives [official website] also passed [JURIST report] an Arizona-style immigration law. Unlike its Arizona predecessor, the Utah immigration bill does not provide an avenue for private citizens to sue local police who do not enforce the law. The issue of illegal immigration [JURIST news archive] has been the subject of legislation and lawsuits across the country, and several states have enacted or proposed legislation [JURIST reports] similar to the controversial Arizona immigration law. The Arizona law, which has been widely criticized as unconstitutional for allegedly legalizing racial profiling, has sparked a nationwide debate on immigration policy, prompting calls for immigration reform [JURIST report] from President Barack Obama [official profile]. In October, a judge for the US District Court in the District of Arizona [official website] denied [order, PDF] motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law. Two other lawsuits [JURIST report] challenging the law were filed last year and are still pending.

Earlier this month, the UK's top civil servant reported [JURIST report] that the previous administration "[did] all it could" to facilitate a Libyan appeal to allow for the release of Megrahi from a Scottish prison, but that the decision-making power was solely within the province of the Scottish Government. Last August, the Obama administration urged Libyan authorities to return Megrahi to a Scottish prison [JURIST report] to serve the remainder of his sentence. Also in August, the opposition Scottish Labour Party [party website] called for the publication of all medical evidence [JURIST report] related to Megrahi's release. In July, US lawmakers called for an investigation [JURIST report] into the role that British Petroleum (BP) [corporate website; JURIST news archive], which was engaged in contract negotiations to explore drilling in Libya and was suffering "significant financial loss" while these contracts remained unsigned, may have played in Megrahi's release. Megrahi's release was controversial, with both US officials and the Scottish Parliament [JURIST reports] condemning it. Libya made its final compensation payment [JURIST report] to a US fund for victims' families in November 2008 after agreeing to accept responsibility for the 1988 airline bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed all 259 on board [memorial website] and 11 others, including 180 Americans.