The delegation of discretion in some ways is the opposite of cohesive claims that are common to everyone in the class. The common policies that the plaintiffs point to are either neutral and not argued to be discriminatory or they are affirmatively nondiscriminatory. The company has a very strong policy against discrimination and in favor of diversity.

In Fowler v. United States [oral arguments transcript], the court heard arguments on whether a federal court can convict an individual of murdering a witness under the federal witness tampering statute [18 USC § 1512(a)(1)(C) text] without first proving that the victim provided evidence of a federal crime to authorities. The statute prohibits killing or attempting to kill a person with the intent to prevent the person from providing information about a federal crime to police or a court. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled [decision, PDF] that Charles Fowler violated the statute by killing a police officer who had stopped Fowler and his accomplices while they were in a stolen vehicle containing drugs, had recently committed an interstate robbery and were planning a bank robbery. Fowler protested that prosecutors failed to establish that it was likely the officer would transfer information to federal investigators or that it was likely that a federal investigation would be opened. The court held, however, that prosecutors need only establish that the defendant killed the victim to prevent the communication of a possible federal offense and that they had met that burden. Counsel for the petitioner Fowler argued that the court should apply a narrower, "realistic likelihood" standard when determining if the victim would have provided information to federal authorities, rather than the government's vague, "reasonably possible" standard. Counsel for the respondent government replied that the reasonableness standard gives the jury discretion to determine whether a victim could have provided evidence to a federal agent, since it is not possible to know the "specific intent" of the deceased victim.

Nokia and Apple have been embroiled in litigation marked by trading accusations of patent infringement. In December, the litigation spread to Germany, the UK and the Netherlands where Nokia filed 13 patent infringement complaints [JURIST report] against Apple. Last May, Nokia filed a complaint [JURIST report] in the US District Court in the Western District for Wisconsin [official website] alleging that Apple iPad and iPhone 3G products infringe additional Nokia patents. Apple counter-sued last December, claiming Nokia had stolen 13 patents from the company.

Perisic's trial began [JURIST report] in October 2008. ICTY Prosecutor Mark Harmon said Perisic was one of the "principal collaborators" of late Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic [JURIST news archive], claiming in his opening statement that Perisic "created an environment of impunity, wherein his subordinates were encouraged and did persist to commit crimes, knowing there would be no consequences." Perisic turned himself in to the UN in 2005, surrendering to officials [JURIST reports] from the ICTY.

But spreading the enforcement burden is hardly what Congress contemplated when it made HHS administrator of the interdependent Medicaid Rebate Program and 340B Program. Suits by 340B entities would undermine the agency's efforts to administer these two programs harmoniously and uniformly. Notably, the Medicaid Rebate Program's statute prohibits HHS from disclosing pricing information that could reveal the prices a manufacturer charges for its drugs. Had Congress meant to leave open the prospect of third-party beneficiary suits by 340B entities, it likely would not have barred them from obtaining the very information necessary to determine whether their asserted rights have been violated.

Santa Clara County [official website], which operates several health care providers had filed the suit against Astra and eight other pharmaceutical companies alleging they were overcharging the health care providers in violation of the Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreements. The county was seeking compensatory damages for breach of contract. Oral arguments [transcript, PDF] for the case were held in January. Astra argued [brief, PDF] that only Congress can provide a cause of action under a federal statute, and that this circumvention of Congressional intent will disrupt the statutory scheme and the Medicaid system. The county argued [brief, PDF] that as third-party beneficiaries, health care providers are entitled to enforce contracts and that such enforcement is necessary given the lack of oversight by the Federal government.

[W]hen city policymakers are on actual or constructive notice that a particular omission in their training program causes city employees to violate citizens' constitutional rights, the city may be deemed deliberately indifferent if the policymakers choose to retain that program. ... Without notice that a course of training is deficient in a particular respect, decisionmakers can hardly be said to have deliberately chosen a training program that will cause violations of constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday also dismissed [opinion, PDF] a writ of certiorari in Tolentino v. New York [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] as improvidently granted. The court declined to address the issue of whether the exclusionary rule prohibits police from using a defendant's driving record compiled by the state's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) obtained after illegally stopping the defendant.

Last year, the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] 7-2 in Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that whistleblowers cannot bring suit under the FCA to recover misspent government funds if the information used in the lawsuits came from state or local agencies' reports or audits. The suit arose out of public record documents that detailed a failure to obtain bids for the clean-up and reconstruction of storm-damaged portions of North Carolina. The ruling could potentially bar thousands of lawsuits by whistleblowers. However, Congress recently changed the language of the statute [SCOTUSblog report] as part of the health care reform bill [HR 3590 materials] signed into law [JURIST report] in March 2010.

In October, Israel's cabinet approved a controversial change [JURIST report] to the country's citizenship oath forcing new citizens to pledge allegiance to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state." Critics claim the oath, which was proposed by Israel Beytenu, unfairly discriminates against Arabs and threatens to increase tensions between Israelis and Palestinians. In July, the Knesset passed a law [JURIST report] limiting the ability of Arab-Israelis to bring Palestinian relatives into Israel. In 2009, the cabinet rejected an oath [JURIST report] proposed by Israel Beytenu that would force applicants for Israeli citizenship to pledge loyalty to a "Zionist, Jewish and democratic Israel."

Berlusconi also faces trial for underage prostitution [JURIST report] on April 6. In February, an Italian judge ordered Berlusconi to stand trial on charges of paying for sex with a minor and abuse of power. Berlusconi allegedly paid 7,000 euros to then 17-year-old dancer, Karima El Mahroug, for sex and later called police to secure her release [BBC report] while she was detained on an unrelated suspicion of theft. The scandal has made Berlusconi the subject of protests [Reuters] by hundreds of thousands of women, calling for his resignation over his recent sex scandal. Berlusconi, however, has refused to step down. Also in February, an Italian court resumed a tax fraud case [JURIST report] against Berlusconi. The case was re-opened after the Constitutional Court modified a law [JURIST report] aimed at giving Berlusconi and other public officials temporary immunity from charges while in office. That same month, Berlusconi solidified his intentions to remain in office by pledging judicial reform [JURIST report] and several other improvement he plans to make in Italy.

Egypt has been heavily criticized by rights groups and international organizations for its handling of protesters. On Thursday, a commission of Arab and Egyptian human rights groups accused [JURIST report] former president Hosni Mubarak [Al Jazeera profile] and the police of murdering protesters during the demonstrations in Egypt. In February, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] reported new evidence that the Supreme Military Council of Egypt had been torturing protester-detainees [JURIST report]. Through various detainee accounts, AI stated that individuals were tortured "to intimidate protesters and to obtain information about plans for the protests." Also in February, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] reported that the Egyptian military was improperly detaining protesters and allowing prisoner abuse [JURIST report]. The report calculated at least 119 arbitrary detentions and five incidents of torture, providing detainee accounts. HRW contends that the military was targeting human rights activists, protesters and journalists. In January, UN officials including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay [official websites], urged the Egyptian government to exercise restraint [JURIST report] and respect the rights of protesters. Pillay acknowledged reports of tactics including rubber-coated bullets, tear gas, water cannons and batons, and called on the government to investigate the reports of excessive force including civilian deaths.