The dispute over Davis has strained what are already shaky diplomatic relations between the US and Pakistan. Those relations have been plagued by a variety of factors, including deaths related to airstrikes within Pakistan [WP report]. Pakistan filed a complaint with NATO [JURIST report] in October as a result of those airstrikes. Despite the fractured relationship, Pakistan remains one of the key US allies in the Middle East. In September of last year, Pakistani authorities arrested three individuals [JURIST report] linked with Faisal Shahzad [JURIST news archive], the man accused of attempting to detonate a bomb in Times Square.

There are those who will say these bills may not be perfect, but they are a step in the right direction and they are better than what we had. Thanks to the vision and determination of these local leaders, what we have begun today is a framework for a national conversation about immigration and a means to engage the federal government. Once again, Utah leads the nation in finding solutions and making tough choices.

Utah is one of several states that have developed legislation in the past year reflecting the controversial Arizona immigration law. The US Department of Justice [official website] in July filed suit [JURIST report] against Arizona Governor Jan Brewer [official website] seeking to permanently enjoin the state's immigration law. The complaint states that the law is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause [text] of the US Constitution. The Arizona law criminalizes illegal immigration and requires police officers to question an individual's immigration status if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" to believe an individual is in the country illegally. It has been widely criticized in regard to the law's constitutionality and alleged "legalization" of racial profiling. Additionally, in October a federal judge denied [JURIST report] motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the law's constitutionality, and in February Governor Brewer announced [JURIST report] a counterclaim [summary, PDF] against the US government in its lawsuit challenging the law. A three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments [JURIST report] on the case in November, but have not yet reached a decision on the matter.

Under international human rights law, Slovenia is obliged to address discrimination, to end segregation, to ensure at least a minimum security of tenure to all persons who lack it, to provide adequate housing for all persons without discrimination, to prioritise the most disadvantaged groups in housing policies and programmes, and to guarantee access to at least the minimum essential levels of water and sanitation for all persons. Slovenia has failed to comply with these obligations and confer security of tenure to people living in informal settlements and to provide access to water and sanitation to all persons, including those living in informal settlements.

The Roma population has faced discrimination [JURIST comment] in various European countries. In November, a complaint [text, PDF] filed with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe [official website] by the Open Society Justice Initiative, the European Roma Rights Centre and the Greek Helsinki Monitor [advocacy websites] alleged that the Czech Republic continued to discriminate [JURIST report] against Roma school children. The groups alleged that the Czech government failed to implement a November 2007 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] decision [text; JURIST report], which determined that the Czech Republic indirectly discriminated against Roma children. In October, the League of Human Rights (LDH) [advocacy website, in French] accused French authorities of improperly collecting DNA samples [JURIST report] from Roma migrants. French police may collect samples of genetic material from indicted individuals, though the organization contended that police have subjected the Roma to such procedures without being either arrested or charged. In September, AI urged EU members to stop forcibly deporting Roma migrants to Kosovo [JURIST report]. AI believed that Roma, as well as other ethnic minority groups, could face persecution or violence upon their return.

For clarification, you are not being discriminated against, as you allude to in your letter. ... You are being treated the same as the other inmates in [California Men's Colony]. You may have a beard, but you must keep it trimmed to no more than one-half inch in length. There is no provision in the [California Code of Regulations], Title 15 for the Warden to exempt the grooming standards.

Members of the Sikh religion have also contested state prohibitions of ceremonial religious dress [JURIST news archives], including headscarves, turbans and daggers. In February 2010, a UK judge criticized Britain's ban on Sikhs wearing their ceremonial dagger [JURIST report] in public places. In 2007, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) revised security procedures relating to headwear, after Sikhs criticized [JURIST reports] the potential for religious profiling. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned [JURIST report] a Quebec school board's ban on carrying Sikh ceremonial daggers at school, ruling that it infringed students' religious freedom under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2006, the French Conseil d'Etat held [JURIST report] that Sikhs have to remove their turbans to be photographed for driver's licenses as a matter of public security.

In late February, the BOEMRE approved an offshore drilling permit [press release] for the first time since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Earlier that month, Feldman found the US Department of Interior (DOI) [official website] in contempt for a drilling moratorium issued last July after Feldman enjoined enforcement of an earlier moratorium [JURIST reports]. Feldman's February 17 order reversed a January decision by Feldman refusing Ensco's request to put a deadline [JURIST reports] on when the BOEMRE must make its decision.

The County's argument reduces to the claim that because the application of RLUIPA to the courthouse holding facility is impractical and inconvenient the facility must not fall within the Act's definition of "institution." But this approach conflates RLUIPA's coverage and accommodation prongs. Congress certainly had real-world consequences in mind when it enacted RLUIPA, and the text of the statute indicates that it did not intend to minimize the serious security and other management interests of institutions. It chose, however, to deal with accommodation issues as a second step in the analysis, not by categorically excluding facilities like the Santa Ana Courthouse holding facility from RLUIPA.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia (ACLUGA) [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit in December on behalf of a Muslim woman who was arrested for refusing to remove her hijab in court, and ordered to serve 10 days in jail for contempt[JURIST reports] in 2008. In May 2010, a judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] a lawsuit against a Michigan judge who ordered a Muslim woman to remove her headscarf in court. The suit [complaint, PDF] was filed in August by CAIR [advocacy website] on behalf of Raneen Albaghdady against Judge William Callahan of the Wayne County Circuit Court. Callahan has a policy against hats in his courtroom, and when he asked Albaghdady to remove her headscarf, or hijab, she did so without objection.