This confusion has generated a three-way circuit split and lower-court disarray regarding the proper test for evaluating Establishment Clause challenges to passive displays on government property. ... In short, the Tenth Circuit's approach, if allowed to stand, will prohibit the government from accommodating public displays of religious symbols, forbid a widely embraced means of commemorating fallen heroes on public property, and manifest an unconstitutional hostility toward religion.

Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] a constitutional challenge to the National Day of Prayer (NDP) [official website], overturning an earlier lower court decision [JURIST report] that found the event in violation of the Establishment Clause by representing government-backed encouragement that Americans engage in non-secular activity. The Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] last April in Salazar v. Buono [Cornell LII backgrounder] that the lower courts were wrong to ban the government from transferring public land containing a religious symbol to a private entity. The dispute concerned a Latin cross on a rock outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve. The display of the cross on public property had already been found in violation of the Establishment Clause, so the government sought to transfer the portion of land on which the cross was located to a private entity. Last March, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled that a teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance [JURIST report] in public schools does not violate the Constitution's Establishment Clause. The court also upheld the use of the phrase "In God We Trust" on currency. In November 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] ruled that a school district's policy prohibiting the performance of religious holiday songs [JURIST report] does not violate the Establishment Clause.

PPACA represents a dramatic attempt to assert federal command and control over this country's health care system ... the power to require or regulate a person's choice in the mode of securing health care services. Require employers to provide health insurance coverage to their employees, determine the content of health insurance policies or limit the construction or expansion of the hospital or medical facilities or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the United States Constitution.

Idaho is one of a group of states [JURIST report] which joined in a suit against the federal government [JURIST report] filed in March 2010 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website] alleging that PPACA is unconstitutional. The judge in that case struck down [JURIST report] the law. The US Department of Justice [official website] appealed the ruling, and the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] has agreed to hear the case on expedited review [JURIST report]. The health care reform law is the subject of numerous other legal challenges across the country. Last month, Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli [official website] filed a petition for a writ of certiorari [JURIST report] with the US Supreme Court [JURIST news archive] asking the court to rule on the constitutionality of the law on an expedited basis, before the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] rules on the issue. In January, a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging a provision of the health care reform law. In October, a federal judge in Michigan ruled that the law is constitutional [JURIST report] under the Commerce Clause as it addresses the economic effects of health care decisions, and that it does not represent an unconstitutional direct tax.

With deep conviction and condemnation, the Syrian authorities continue to use excessive force and violence to disperse a number of peaceful assemblies to isolate the Syrian citizens on 20/04/2011, in a number of provinces and cities in Syria, which led to the occurrence of a number of victims, in addition to the arbitrary arrests by the Syrian authorities against some of the Syrian citizens who had gathered peacefully, despite the announcement of the decision to lift state of emergency and the law of peaceful assembly.

Last month, al-Assad ordered the formation of a committee [JURIST report] that evaluated possible elimination of the country's 48-year-old state of emergency law. The panel was composed of legal experts and charged with examining potential legislative measures that would simultaneously preserve national security and allow the revocation of the law, which permitted arrest without charge and banned political protests. The announcement may have been an effort to appease demonstrators, whose activity had recently increased, while also conveying that any future reforms would proceed at a gradual pace. In March, al-Assad announced that the government would consider ending the state of emergency [JURIST report]. Also in March, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] urged the Syrian government [JURIST report] to ensure protesters' rights to peaceful expression and to work toward addressing their concerns instead of responding with violence.

Oklahoma becomes the fourth state to ban abortions after the 20-week mark, following Idaho, Kansas and Nebraska [JURIST reports]. Earlier this month, the Alabama House of Representatives voted 69-19 to approve a bill that would ban abortion [JURIST news report] after 20 weeks of gestation, except in cases where the mother's life is at risk or she faces serious injury. Also in April, the Ohio Senate approved a bill [JURIST report] that would limit the availability of abortions after 20 weeks. The Iowa and Missouri [JURIST reports] Houses of Representatives have also approved similar legislation. In March, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed into law [JURIST report] a bill requiring women to seek counseling at a pregnancy center and wait three days before obtaining an abortion.

We are deeply disturbed that the Obama administration has chosen to use the military commissions to try a capital case in which much of the evidence is reportedly based on hearsay and therefore not reliable enough to be admissible in federal court. Allowing hearsay is a backdoor way of allowing evidence that may have been obtained through torture

Complicating the prosecution is the controversial history of al-Nashiri's detention. Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] agents confirmed [Spiegel report] in 2010 the existence of a secret CIA black site [JURIST news archive] in Poland, where al-Nashiri was allegedly waterboarded and subjected to mock executions. According to one agent, al-Nashiri was stripped naked and hooded before a gun and a drill were held close to his head. The allegations led the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) [advocacy website] to launch an abuse investigation [JURIST report] in September 2010. Section 948r of the Military Commissions Act of 2009 [text, PDF] prohibits the use in military courts of evidence obtained through "torture or cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment," a provision that could implicate potential limitations on the prosecutors' ability to use certain evidence if it can be established that al-Nashiri was subjected to such treatment in Poland or at Gitmo. Former Polish prime minister Leszek Miller denied any knowledge of such a facility [JURIST report]. Most recently, Polish prosecutors, who began investigating the potential existence of the Polish CIA prison in 2008, asked US officials [JURIST reports] last month to question al-Nashiri and fellow detainee Abu Zubaydah about the existence of the facility, saying their testimony was essential to establishing its existence.

Blagojevich was found guilty [JURIST report] last year of making false statements to the FBI, but the jury remained deadlocked on 23 additional charges. His attorneys, who had worked without pay, argued that a retrial was an economic hardship and an unnecessary drain on taxpayer funds. Beyond suggesting that the request was made primarily to arouse public attention, the judge clarified the motion was improperly presented and, therefore, could not be ruled upon. Blagojevich's defense team was granted additional time to file a proper motion, even though the court predicts the issue will dissipate with time. If convicted of making false statements to the FBI, Blagojevich faces a maximum five-year prison sentence.

Members of the country's socialist party (MSZP) [official website, in Hungarian] and green liberal political party (LMP) boycotted the vote [Reuters report]. The measure was supported by and passed as a result of the ruling Hungarian Civic Party (FIDESZ) [official website, in Hungarian; JURIST news archive], which has controlled a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly since 2010. The constitution introduces several changes, including a debt ceiling where the country's debt cannot exceed 50 percent of the country's gross domestic product (GDP); a reform of the Fiscal Council, giving the group the right to veto the budget and dissolve parliament for failure to pass an annual budget by the end of March; a definition of marriage as a union between man and woman; and a statement that the life of a fetus begins at and should be protected from conception. The constitution also includes a new preamble that condemns the communist and socialist climate in Hungary that existed from 1944 to 1990 and solidifies democratization that began 20 years ago.