The Supreme Court's statements in Hunter and Seattle clarify that equal protection of the laws is more than a guarantee of equal treatment under the law substantively. It is also an assurance that the majority may not manipulate the channels of change in a manner that places unique burdens on issues of importance to racial minorities. In effect, the political process theory hews to the unremarkable belief that, when two competitors are running a race, one may not require the other to run twice as far, or to scale obstacles not present in the first runner's course. Ensuring the fairness of political processes, in particular, is essential, because an electoral minority is by definition disadvantaged in its attempts to pass legislation; and "discrete and insular minorities" are especially so given the unique hurdles they face.

Michigan voters approved [JURIST report] the constitutional amendment in November 2006, and it was initially expected to take effect in late December. In December 2006, a federal judge ruled that the universities could delay implementing the proposal [JURIST report] until the they had completed the 2006-2007 admission cycle under current procedures, but that order was later stayed [opinion, PDF] by the Sixth Circuit. The US Supreme Court [official website] declined [JURIST report] to consider whether the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University could delay implementing Proposal 2 in early 2007. The amendment explicitly applied to the University of Michigan, whose affirmative action policies in admissions were reviewed by the US Supreme Court in the Grutter and Gratz cases in 2003. The court ruled that the US Constitution permitted the university to consider race as a factor in the admissions process, upholding the University law school admissions policy [Grutter opinion text] while rejecting the more rigid undergraduate admissions system as discriminatory [Gratz opinion text].

Between the Commission's possible review of the denial order and the Licensing Board's consideration of the Yucca Mountain license application, the only administrative outcome that will fail to resolve the issues presented in Petitioner's first claim would be if the Commission reviews and overturns the Licensing Board's denial, permitting the DOE to withdraw its license application. At that point, petitioners would have the opportunity to demonstrate whether the effects of the DOE action are felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.

The nuclear repository has not been welcomed by Nevada government officials, who have been mounting challenges against the site since Congress approved government plans to construct the facility in 2002. Government officials fear that the repository, which will be located 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, will negatively effect the city's $28 billion tourism industry. Rejecting challenges by Nevada officials, the DC Circuit ruled in 2004 that federal plans to build a nuclear waste site in the state were constitutional under the Takings Clause [JURIST report]. In March 2006 Nevada filed a lawsuit against the federal government, seeking documents related to the repository [JURIST report], including documents which allegedly contain information that the proposed site cannot meet radiation safety standards [JURIST report] mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website]. Later that year Nevada filed suit in the DC Circuit Court challenging the DOE's Record of Decision (ROD) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) governing the transportation of waste to Yucca Mountain, alleging that both violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The court declined to review a DOE proposal to move nuclear waste to the repository by rail, finding that some claims by Nevada lacked merit [JURIST report] while others were unripe. The application for the repository has been pending since 2008 when it was filed by former president George W. Bush. The repository was approved by Congress in 1987 to contain highly toxic waste from nuclear complexes that built atomic bombs during the Cold War.

The Ivory Coast has begun the process of investigating the violence after the fight between Gbagbo and Ouattara. Last week, the Ivory Coast granted the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] permission to proceed with its investigation into the violence. As the Ivory Coast is not a member state of the ICC because it is not a signatory of the Rome Statute [text, PDF], the ICC can only investigate with the Ivory Coast's express permission. The Ivory Coast announced earlier this month it would establish its own commission [JURIST report] to investigate alleged crimes committed as a result of the disputed presidential elections. This investigation may take up to two years [Reuters report]. Also, an official for the UN's International Commission of Inquiry called for an investigation [JURIST report] into Ouattara and his forces' continuing attacks against supporters of ousted leader Laurent Gbagbo [BBC profile] earlier this month. In April, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged Ouattara to conduct an investigation [JURIST report] into alleged atrocities carried out by his forces in its attempts to secure the presidency.

Several countries have attempted to bolster cymbercrime security enforcement in recent years. Last week, the Australian Government [official website] introduced legislation [press release] aimed at reinforcing current cybercrime laws [JURIST report] and improving Australia's international cybercrime security. In early June, US authorities announced that they are investigating claims by Google [JURIST report] that hundreds of personal Gmail accounts were breached by hackers in China. In November 2009, the Iranian government announced the establishment of a new police unit [JURIST report] to fight Internet crime, though opposition leaders said its true purpose was to crack down on protesters and voices of dissent, who rely on the Internet to get their message out. The Finnish legislature passed the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media Act [unofficial translation, PDF] in December 2008 that now provides a remedy to victims of Internet crime [JURIST report], but it was not in effect at the time of an incident of Internet pedophilia. The US Senate ratified [JURIST report] the COE Convention on Cybercrime, which is intended to improve information- and evidence-sharing between national governments to prevent crimes on the Internet, in August 2006.

US President Barack Obama and former president George W. Bush both denounced the sentence, with Bush issuing an executive memoranda [text, PDF] that Texas had to comply with the ICJ's ruling. The Supreme Court ruled in Medellin v. Texas [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], that Bush did not have the authority to direct a state court to comply with a ruling from the ICJ. However, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Congress could make the treaty binding in domestic law. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [official website] is attempting to do this by introducing the Consular Notification Compliance Act [text, PDF] earlier this month, which is currently in committee [bill materials]. Texas has already executed two Mexican nationals [JURIST report] who were denied consular access.

The implementation of the second package of austerity measures and structural reforms, which includes a wholesale privatization of state-owned enterprises and assets, is likely to have a serious impact on basic social services and therefore the enjoyment of human rights by the Greek people, particularly the most vulnerable sectors of the population such as the poor, elderly, unemployed and persons with disabilities. The rights to food, water, adequate housing, and work under fair and equitable conditions should not be compromised by the implementation of austerity measures strike a careful balance between austerity and the realization of human rights, taking into account the primacy of States' human rights obligations. ... A shrinking economy cannot generate any revenue and contributes to a reduced capacity to repay the debt. More time should have been allowed for the restructuring measures already in place to work. The problem of insolvency needs to be addressed as part of the rescue plan.

Dimitrios Ioannidis of Roach, Ioannidis & Megaloudis, LLC, has argued [JURIST op-ed] that the debt crisis in Greece is in part the result of deregulation of US financial markets coupled with the strategic use of complex financial instruments. He argues that hedging by financiers on the Greece's default similar and related to the credit default swaps that drove the US housing market meltdown. Last month, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou [official website] proposed undertaking a constitutional referendum arguing its necessity in order to eliminate the systemic governmental inefficiency and waste that led to the country's recent economic crisis [BBC backgrounder] and to prosecute corrupt officials. But opponents described the proposal as a politically-motivated tactic to shift the dialogue away from questions of Papandreou's competency. In May 2010, the EU and IMF announced the initial €110 billion bailout package for Greece, which was subsequently approved by euro-zone leaders [BBC report]. The following day, Germany's Constitutional Court [official website, in German] refused to issue a temporary injunction [JURIST report] against the country's €22.4 billion contribution to the bailout fund. The suit, brought by the same group that had previously sought to block Germany's adoption of the euro, claimed that the contribution was unconstitutional.

In 2009, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] found that Russia discriminated [press release] against the Church of Scientology by barring their attempts to re-register as an organized religion [JURIST report]. In 2008, the German government ended an investigation [JURIST report] into the practices of the Church of Scientology [church website]. While the government's investigation into Scientology ceased, the organization continues to be under surveillance by domestic intelligence services [AP report]. Earlier, a Scientology center in France faced criminal charges [JURIST report] in connection with allegations of fraud and the illegal practice of pharmacy. That same year, Belgian prosecutor Jean-Claude Van Espen said Scientology should be classified as a criminal organization [JURIST report] after completing a 10-year investigation into the church's activities.

This law takes restricting access to abortion to a whole new level. If implemented, it would have the practical effect of requiring many of our patients to drive the equivalent of halfway across the country to access an abortion. On top of that, it would force our patients to discuss their most private medical information with an unlicensed, non-medical group that is opposed to abortion. We are happy and relieved for our patients that the court’s decision today means they will not have to suffer through these outrageous and demeaning requirements.

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard [official website] signed [JURIST report] HB 1217 into law in March. Daugaard has said he was prepared for the state attorney to defend the law against the ACLU and Planned Parenthood challenge [JURIST report] alluding to a private donor willing to finance the endeavor. South Dakota is one of many states which has recently been introducing more restrictive abortion laws. The Iowa House of Representatives [official website] voted in June in favor of a bill [HF-1736 text, PDF] that would effectively ban abortions after 18 weeks of pregnancy {JURIST report], making it the most restrictive abortion law in the country. Earlier that week, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton [official website] vetoed a pair of bills [JURIST report] that restricted state funding for abortions and banned them altogether after 20 weeks. Also in May, Texas Governor Rick Perry [official website] signed into law a bill that requires women seeking an abortion to first get a sonogram [JURIST report]. Multiple states have acted to ban abortions after 20 weeks, when some studies suggest a fetus can begin feeling pain, including Missouri, Indiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, Kansas and Idaho [JURIST reports].

The collective actions of the people of North Africa and the Middle East have reaffirmed the importance and universality of human rights in a way we could not have dreamed of on 1 January this year. We all want, we all deserve, and we are all entitled to have our rights observed—not partially, not sometimes, not at the whim of dictators or other repressive rulers and authorities, but all of us, all of the time, everywhere. That is THE message of the Arab Spring, and it is a message that has reverberated all across the world, stimulating discussion and dialogue, and renewed hope in the power of people to realize change. It has also produced some other interesting, unforeseen and important shifts.

Pillay referred to several ongoing conflicts in her speech, including the success of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, although she admitted conflict and injustices in both nations still exist. Last week, Tunisia acceded [press release] to the Rome Statute [text] of the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website], which is now set to become effective [JURIST report] in the country on September 1, 2011. A trial date for former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak [Al Jazeera profile; JURIST news archive] was set [JURIST report] for August 3 at the Cairo Criminal Court [MENA report]. However, other countries remain in turmoil. Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa [official website] announced this week that an independent commission will investigate human rights violations [JURIST report] related to the country's pro-democracy protests. Khalifa said that the country had already begun to move forward from the violence, but maintained that the commission would seek to uncover who should be held responsible. The ICC also this week issued arrest warrants [decision, PDF] against Libyan leader Mummar Gaddafi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and two of his high-ranking officials, for alleged crimes against the people [JURIST report] of Libya [JURIST backgrounder] to quell the revolt that began last February. Last week, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] announced [text] that it plans to send a panel to investigate the human rights situation [JURIST report] in Yemen [OHCHR backgrounder].