In Bullcoming v. New Mexico [oral arguments transcript, PDF], the court will decide whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder] permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements. Petitioner Donald Bullcoming, convicted in state court of driving while intoxicated, appealed the New Mexico Supreme Court decision holding that a forensic supervisor can testify in court as to the analysis and report of a technician who did not testify. Counsel for Bullcoming relies on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts [JURIST report], which held that a forensic analyst's report is "testimonial evidence" and thus the analyst is subject to cross-examination. Counsel for respondent argue that the forensic test was performed by a machine, distinguishing Melendez-Diaz, and that because a witness with knowledge of laboratory procedure and the functioning of the machine was provided, there is no constitutional violation. During argument, the justices repeatedly questioned counsel for New Mexico regarding their assertion that there is a difference between an affidavit offered by an analyst, as in Melendez-Diaz, and a purely machine-produced report. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, focusing on the certification of both documents, pressed counsel as to how they could be considered distinguishable, saying, "I'm sorry, could you tell me what that means? Why is it different than the affidavit? It's certified, and my understanding of the dictionary meaning of certification is that that's an attestation as to the truth of the statements contained therein. That's the common definition." Justice Antonin Scalia, focusing on the fact that the analyst had been placed on leave without pay during the trial, stated perhaps the most important reason why the defendant should have been permitted to cross examine the analyst, "Does the defense know why it was leave without pay? Could the defense have found out in cross-examination that the reason he was leave without pay because he was—had shown himself to be incompetent, and they were in the process of firing him? I don't know whether that's true, but wouldn't that be important to the defense?"

The US District Court for the Northern District of Iowa sentenced Jason Pepper to 77 months imprisonment for a drug offense, and the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official websites] affirmed [opinion, PDF] the sentence in July 2009. At the certiorari stage, the US government agreed with Pepper that the Eighth Circuit erred and urged the justices to vacate and remand the case, but the court decided to take the case, leaving amicus curiae to argue in support of respondents.

One woman attested that workers must be part of the "informal network versus the formal network" to be successful because Wal-Mart is "a very cli[que]-oriented environment" in which women were referred to as "girls" and "Janie Qs." Another woman reported that her manager "ran the store like a boys' club" in which male managers regularly socialized with male hourly workers, leaving her to run the store. Another was told by a senior vice president that she would not advance because she did not "hunt, fish, or do other typically-male activities" with the "boys" in the company and was not "a part of the boys club." [Another] woman employee was told that promotion was based on "whom you knew, not what you knew"

The Supreme Court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in Wal-Mart v. Dukes in December 2010. The court is set to determine whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) [text] and whether the class certification ordered under this rule was consistent with FRCP 23(a). The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld class certification [JURIST report] in April 2010. The class is estimated to include more than 1.5 million women employed by Wal-Mart since December 26, 1998, which makes it the largest class action lawsuit in US history.

The Office of the Prosecutor is liaising with the United Nations, the African Union, the Arab League, as well as States. Additionally, the Prosecutor will also request information from other sources including from Interpol who will provide assistance. The Prosecutor will act independently and impartially. The next step is for the Prosecutor to present his case to ICC judges who will then decide whether or not to issue arrest warrants based on the evidence.

On Saturday, the UN Security Council voted unanimously [press release] to impose sanctions [JURIST report] on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi [BBC profile], marking the first unanimous referral to the ICC in UN history. Resolution 1970 also received support from Libya's delegation itself, which renounced Gaddafi on Friday [Reuters report]. Subsequently, the UN General Assembly voted Tuesday to suspend Libya [JURIST report] from the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] in response to the violent suppression of peaceful protesters by forces loyal to Gaddafi. According to a statement issued by the court Monday, the ICC will not grant immunity [JURIST report] to any person perpetrating crimes against humanity in Libya.

Given that Westboro's speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to special protection under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

The court's ruling affirmed a ruling [opinion, PDF] by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website], which held that Phelps' speech was protected by the First Amendment. The Fourth Circuit overturned a lower court decision which awarded the family [JURIST report] almost $11 million in damages. At oral arguments, counsel for the petitioner argued [JURIST report] that the court should place an emphasis on the context of the speech in light of the fact that the protests took place at a military funeral. Counsel for the church argued that, because Snyder had turned his son's funeral into a public event, the church's actions were protected because they were speaking on a matter of public concern.

In December, the US government pledged to support a non-binding UN treaty [JURIST report] expressing support for the rights of indigenous peoples. The US was the last member to lend its support to the treaty. In November, Canada endorsed [JURIST report] the declaration citing [statement] encouragement from community leaders and other countries' experiences in reversing its position on the document. The Canadian government described the move as one intended to strengthen relationships with indigenous communities. In April, New Zealand endorsed [AFP report] the declaration, as did Australia [JURIST report] in 2009.

After being asked [JURIST report] by the Ninth Circuit to weigh in, the Supreme Court of California [official website] announced [release, PDF; JURIST report] last month that it will decide whether supporters of Proposition 8 have standing to defend the measure when state officials have refused to do so. When Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] struck down Proposition 8, then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former attorney general and current Governor Jerry Brown [official website], who were originally defendants in the lawsuit, refused to continue defending the measure on appeal [JURIST report], leaving defendant-intervenors Project Marriage [advocacy website] and other groups to defend the law. In January, the Ninth Circuit also upheld [opinion, PDF] a lower court decision refusing to allow officials from Imperial County, California [JURIST report] to intervene, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt issued a memorandum opinion [text, PDF] on his decision not to recuse himself [JURIST report]. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments [video; JURIST report] in the case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger [case materials] in December. The hearing was divided into two one-hour sessions, with the first section focusing on the issue of standing and the second on Proposition 8's constitutionality.

Such a provision, which enables the Member States in question to maintain without temporal limitation an exemption from the rule of unisex premiums and benefits, works against the achievement of the objective of equal treatment between men and women, which is the purpose of Directive 2004/113, and is incompatible with Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter.

In September, Advocate General at the Court of Justice Juliane Kokott [official profile] issued an advisory opinion [text, WSJ report] in the case concluding that the practice of including gender in setting rates violated the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The case was referred to the ECJ [reference for preliminary ruling] in 2009 by the Constitutional Court of Belgium [official website].

Protests in Wisconsin have been in effect since February 15, when a committee on behalf of Walker released Senate Bill 11 [text, PDF] to address the state's $3.6 billion deficit. The bill would require state employees to contribute a percentage of their salaries to their pension and health care premiums, and would eliminate the ability of public employee union members to collectively negotiate anything but wage increase, which would be capped by the Consumer Price Index. These provisions incensed unions and their supporters, sparking the protests. The Wisconsin State Assembly [official website] passed the bill in a vote of 51-17. The bill has yet to be voted on in the Senate, due to the 14 Democrat senators relocating to Illinois as a form of protest. Without them, the Senate is only at 19 members, one short for a quorum, which is required to hold a vote on a fiscal bill. Walker continues to push for his budget proposal, speaking on it earlier today [transcript], and threatening to cut Democrat-approved portions out [press release] if Democrats do not return to vote.

Rainsy was sentenced [JURIST report] in absentia in September to 10 years in prison for charges of forging and disseminating a false map [JURIST report] of the Cambodia-Vietnam border on his political party's website. The map [document, PDF], posted on the SRP website, shows an area along the border of the two countries in which Rainsy alleges the Vietnamese government tampered with four border posts, placing them further into Cambodian territory than UN, US Army, Google and French colonial maps specify. The Cambodian government has never released an official map of the country, although they promised to release one in 2012. Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called [press release] the closed-door trial of Sam Rainsy and two villagers a "farce," saying the ruling demonstrates the government's control over the country's judiciary. In 2006, Rainsy received a royal pardon for a 2005 defamation conviction.