The Office of the Prosecutor is closely following on the situation in Nigeria and is concerned with the outbreak of violence surrounding the National Assembly and Presidential elections of April 2011. In the context of its on-going preliminary examination activities, the Office will seek to establish whether the recent violence may have been planned and organized and whether crimes falling within the Court's jurisdiction may have been committed. The Office is mindful that the upcoming governorship elections on 26 April could lead to further violence. . . . The Office of the Prosecutor welcomes Nigeria's political leaders' call on their supporters to show restraint and avoid unrest.

Previous elections in Nigeria have been marred by violence and fraud [JURIST reports]. The recent elections are the first since the death of former president Umaru Yar'Adua [BBC obituary] in May, which resulted in Jonathan taking power [JURIST report]. Last month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] and the Nigerian Bar Association [association website] called for the Nigerian National Assembly to pass legislation creating a special electoral offenses commission [JURIST report]. In June, a constitutional amendment, known as the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 2010 [text, PDF] was passed, changing federal election law by removing a provision of the constitution that disallowed people who had been charged with fraud from standing for election and requiring candidates for federal office to have a degree beyond secondary education. It also repealed the Independent National Electoral Commission Act 2006 in order to re-instate the Nigerian Independent National Election Commission (INEC) [official website].

We thus vacate and remand the case for the court to determine, as to each defendant, what evidence—if any—the government presented against him that was tainted as to him, and, in the case of any such presentation, whether in light of the entire record the government had shown it to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two ex-Blackwater contractors were convicted of manslaughter [JURIST report] in March for their role in the May 2009 shooting deaths of two Afghan nationals and the wounding of a third. Last April, a federal grand jury indicted five former Blackwater executives [JURIST report] on charges of weapons violations and lying to investigators. In February 2010, the Iraqi government ordered 250 former Blackwater employees to leave Iraq [JURIST report] in reaction to the dismissal of charges against the ex-Blackwater employees allegedly involved in the September 2007 shootings. That month, the DOJ also opened an investigation [JURIST report] into whether Blackwater bribed the Iraqi government to be permitted to continue operating in Iraq following the 2007 shootings. Blackwater ceased operations in Baghdad [JURIST report] in May 2009 when its security contracts expired and were not renewed.

The Court of Appeals' decisions preclude the Commission from effectively implementing statutory restrictions on broadcast indecency that the agency has enforced since its creation in 1934. Accordingly, broadcasters may well believe that they have been freed of the public-interest obligation not to air indecent programming that they assumed when they were originally "granted the free and exclusive use of a limited and valuable part of the public domain."

This case hinges on indecency issues raised in two separate broadcasts, one in which a nudity scene appeared in a television crime show [Bloomberg report] during prime-time hours, and the other involving celebrities using expletives [WSJ report] during live broadcasting events. The Supreme Court originally remanded the case to the Second Circuit after ruling [opinion text; JURIST report] in April 2009 that the FCC did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in changing its policy regarding fines for the broadcast of isolated expletives. That ruling overturned a previous decision [JURIST report] by the Second Circuit, which held that the 2004 policy was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act [text] for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy. The Supreme Court declined to address the constitutionality of the FCC policy in its decision and remanded the case to the lower court for further consideration of the constitutional issue.

Alabama, Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah and Indiana [JURIST reports] have all approved Arizona-style immigration bills within the past year. Nonetheless, these type of laws remain controversial. Earlier this week, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] upheld [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] a lower court decision to enjoin several provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law [SB 1070 materials]. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit [JURIST report] in July to permanently enjoin Arizona from enforcing the law, arguing that it is preempted by federal law and is thus a violation of the Supremacy Clause [text] of the US Constitution. In response, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer [official website] countersued [JURIST report] the federal government alleging an infringement upon state rights. In May, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit [JURIST report] also seeking an injunction against Arizona's immigration law. The national debate over immigration issues has led President Barack Obama to call for comprehensive immigration reform [JURIST report].

View Larger Map

Last week, an Egyptian court ordered that Mubarak's political party be dissolved [JURIST report]. It would be illogical [Reuters report] for Mubarak's National Democratic Party, which took control in 1978, to remain an entity, the country's High Administrative Court said. The court also liquidated the party's assets. Analysts call the court's decision an important step in the building of a multi-party system, which the country has not had for more than 30 years. In a televised statement last week, Mubarak denied the corruption charges [BBC report] against him, asserted his right to defend his reputation and expressed his willingness to cooperate [Al Arabiya report] with investigations, denying that he owns property abroad or holds foreign bank accounts.

Apple has also been embroiled in litigation with Nokia marked by trading accusations of patent infringement. Last month, Nokia filed actions against Apple [JURIST report] in the International Trade Commission and a court in Delaware, accusing Apple of violating seven patents. 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 alleging that Apple iPad and iPhone 3G products infringe additional Nokia patents.

This Court, in the past, has been willing to exercise its judicial power when it found a violation of the Montana Constitution as it related to a specific statute applying to gay people. ... However, what Plaintiffs want here is not a declaration of the unconstitutionality of a specific statute or set of statutes, but rather a direction to the legislature to enact a statutory arrangement. This Court finds Plaintiffs' proposal, although appealing, to be unprecedented and uncharted in Montana law.

Other states continue to debate the legality of same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive]. Earlier this month, the Indiana Senate [official website] overwhelmingly approved [JURIST report] an amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage or any "substantially similar" status, and the Wyoming Senate [official website] in February approved a bill that would void in Wyoming any same-sex marriages and civil unions [JURIST report] performed in other jurisdictions. Also in February, Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie signed a same-sex civil unions bill into law [JURIST report]. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, DC [JURIST reports].

The Court is compelled to note that although Plaintiffs claim to represent "We the People" and the "citizens of the State of New Jersey," ... Plaintiffs are not attorneys and this lawsuit has not been brought as a class action. Moreover, no individual signed the Complaint other than the named Plaintiffs. Thus, the Court considers this as a challenge to the Act brought solely on behalf of the two individual Plaintiffs.

Earlier on Wednesday, Idaho Governor CL "Butch" Otter (R) [official website] issued an executive order prohibiting implementation of the PPACA [JURIST report] in the state. 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 also 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.

Under international law, the deliberate targeting of medical facilities is a war crime, and the deliberate targeting or reckless endangerment of civilians may also amount to serious violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law.

Earlier this month, the UN announced that investigators would enter Libya to begin looking into alleged human rights abuses [JURIST report] by both rebels and the armed forces of Gaddafi. The inquiry into the conditions in Libya had been approved by a unanimous vote [JURIST report] of members of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] on February 25. Also in February, the UN Security Council voted unanimously [press release] to impose sanctions [JURIST report] on Gaddafi, marking the first unanimous referral to the ICC in UN history. Resolution 1970 also received support from Libya's delegation itself, which renounced Gaddafi [Reuters report]. The UN General Assembly voted to suspend Libya [JURIST report] from the Human Rights Council in response to the violent suppression of peaceful protesters by forces loyal to Gaddafi. According to a statement issued by the court, the ICC will not grant immunity [JURIST report] to any person perpetrating crimes against humanity in Libya.