In June, the Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF] in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett [Cornell LII backgrounder] that an Arizona campaign finance regulation that provided publicly financed candidates with additional government subsidies, triggered by independent expenditure groups' speech against such candidates or by the candidates' privately financed opponents, violates the First Amendment [text]. The court held 5-4 that such a system substantially burdens political speech and is not sufficiently justified by a compelling state interest to satisfy the First Amendment. Counsel for the respondent argued that "public funding of elections results in more speech and more electoral competition" and furthers a governmental interest of staving off "real and apparent corruption in politics."

Several states have made efforts similar to North Carolina's attempt to cut funding for abortion [JURIST news archive] services. The state of Kansas filed [JURIST report] an appeal earlier this month seeking to overturn a federal judge's ruling that blocks a state law preventing Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (PPKM) [advocacy website] from receiving federal funding. The same week, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) [advocacy website] filed [JURIST report] an amicus curiae brief seeking to uphold an Indiana state law that would block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood of Indiana (PPIN) [advocacy website] and other organizations providing abortion services. In June, Perdue also vetoed [JURIST report] a North Carolina bill that would have required women seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours and to view an ultrasound of the fetus before an abortion. Perdue called the measure "a dangerous intrusion into the confidential relationship that exists between women and their doctors." The legislature later overrode her veto [JURIST report]

Last August, Scottish Labour Party officials called for the publication of all medical evidence related to the release [JURIST report] of al-Megrahi. The demand came one year after al Megrahi was released [JURIST report] from prison on compassionate grounds because doctors predicted he only had three months to live. Despite the publication of a report leading to the decision, the Labour party said that all medical opinions leading to the decision and the names of the doctors who authored them should also be released [BBC report]. Responding to criticism of his decision to release al Megrahi, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill [official website] claimed he acted in good faith when authorizing the release, denying that there was an arrangement [Telegraph report] for al Megrahi to drop his appeal in return for his release. Al Megrahi returned to his native Libya, where he is still living, and experts have suggested that he could continue living for several more years [AP report]. Al Megrahi's release was controversial, with both US officials and the Scottish Parliament [JURIST reports] condemning it. Last year, US lawmakers called for an investigation [JURIST report] into the role that oil company British Petroleum (BP) [corporate website] may have played in al Megrahi's release.

The original case was filed in 2001 by female Wal-Mart employees [class website] who contend that Wal-Mart's nationwide policies result in lower pay for women than men in comparable positions and longer waits for management promotions than men. Wal-Mart appealed to the Supreme Court in August 2010 after the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld class certification [JURIST reports] in April 2010. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit originally ruled against Wal-Mart's appeal of the class certification in February 2007, then issued a new opinion [text, PDF] in conjunction with its decision in December 2007. Wal-Mart appealed [JURIST report] to the Ninth Circuit in 2005, arguing that the six lead plaintiffs were not typical or common of the class. The certified class, which in 2001 was estimated to comprise more than 1.5 million women, includes all women employed by Wal-Mart nationwide at any time after December 26, 1998. It would have been the largest class action lawsuit in US history.