In May of last year the German constitutional court refused to issue a temporary injunction [JURIST report] against the German government's €22.4 billion ($28.5 billion) contribution to the bailout package for Greece, which has been gripped by a dire debt crisis [BBC backgrounder] and faces severe austerity measures as it grapples with its debt. The court held that the complainants seeking the injunction did not produce any concrete evidence that their rights under Germany's Basic Law could be "seriously and irreversibly" affected as a result of the guaranteed loan. The court's press release also noted that potential liability risk as a result of the contribution is outweighed by reducing the risks of damaging Germany's national economy as a result of instability of the European Monetary Union. The EU and International Monetary Fund (IMF) [official website] announced the initial €110 billion bailout package for Greece earlier that month, and it was subsequently approved by euro zone leaders [BBC report].

Whether a detainee was "part of" an associated force is a mixed question of law and fact. That is, whether a detainee's alleged conduct is sufficient to make him "part of" a force and whether the alleged connections between that force and al Qaeda and/or the Taliban are sufficient to render it an "associated force" are legal questions that we review de novo. Whether the government has proven that conduct and those connections, however, are factual questions that we review for clear error.

Last September, Judge John Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] that the US government can indefinitely hold Khan [JURIST report] at the detention facility in Guantanamo. Lawyers for Khan have argued that he was a shopkeeper in Kandahar and not involved with fighting against American forces. They contended that Khan was captured by corrupt Afghans who turned him over to American forces and lied about his involvement with insurgents. The defense also presented evidence that HIG had no presence in the Kandahar region when Khan was captured. The case against Khan relies heavily on intelligence concurrently gathered by US intelligence collectors through several informants, some of whom are disaffected members of HIG. According to the court's opinion, such intelligence ultimately led to a decision by US military officials to neutralize the HIG cell, including the execution of an operation to capture Khan at his shop. The operation was a success, and Khan's home and shop were searched after his arrest, yielding a variety of physical evidence in the form of notebooks and letters. Heavily redacted classified intelligence reports state that the search of Khan's properties uncovered further, particularly incriminating evidence that confirmed his role in the Kandahar HIG cell.

In this case, however, disclosure will reveal only the "bits" not the "whole." As already discussed, the most that disclosure is likely to lead to is the fact of a single conviction, not a comprehensive scorecard of a person's entire criminal history across multiple jurisdictions. Nor is there a web of statutory or regulatory policies obscuring that information, nor much expense nor logistical difficulty in gathering it.

The ACLU is not finished with its investigation into how governments use cell phone location data to track criminal suspects. Last month the group announced that their affiliates were sending approximately 375 requests for information [JURIST report] in 31 states to reveal how law enforcement uses location data tracking on cell phones. Most jurisdictions have never encountered cell phone tracking as a legal question, so police are generally not required to obtain a warrant. The ACLU is demanding a review of information from each targeted department, including: if probable cause warrants are obtained to access cell phone location data, statistics on how frequently law enforcement gathers this data, how much money is being spent on cell phone tracking, and any other policies or procedures used to acquire cell phone location data. The ACLU also supports the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act [materials], introduced to Congress in June, which would require government agencies to obtain a probable cause warrant before seeking location data.

(1) to protect the global principle of accountability for international crimes, and prevent the establishment of a negative precedent for other states that may emulate Sri Lanka's attempt to flout international law so egregiously; and (2) to help the process of reconciliation inside Sri Lanka through findings issued by a neutral outside body free of perceptions of bias, that can establish the truth and provide justice for the crimes committed by all sides to the conflict, including the LTTE, government forces and their affiliates.

AI has not been the only organization to criticize the conduct of the Sri Lankan government in handling affairs related to the war. Last month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] criticized [JURIST report] a report released by the Sri Lankan government for not taking responsibility for alleged violations of the laws of war. The Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense [official website] released its report entitled, "Humanitarian Operation Factual Analysis", where for the first time it admitted that the military caused civilian deaths near the end of the civil war. The report detailed numerous alleged abuses of LTTE against civilians including using them as human shields. Sri Lanka says it took reasonable steps to avoid civilian casualties. Secretary of Defence Gotabaya Rajapaksa [official profile], in releasing the report said: "The false claims and allegations made by Tamil Diaspora together with the LTTE international network will be laid to rest with the release of the factual analysis reports." Still, HRW criticized the report for its lack of discussion over the military's responsibility for alleged war crimes such as "frequent indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas" and summary executions of LTTE fighters. Brad Adams, Asia director at HRW, said: "The Sri Lankan government is finally admitting that its forces caused civilians losses during the conflict's final months, but unconvincingly claims no responsibility. This is just the latest and glossiest effort to whitewash mounting evidence of government atrocities during the fighting."

Defendants nevertheless contend on appeal that this law is rationally related to the state's interests in cost savings and reducing administrative burdens. As the district court observed, however, the savings depend upon distinguishing between homosexual and heterosexual employees, similarly situated, and such a distinction cannot survive rational basis review.

A 2008 executive order from then-governor Janet Napolitano expanded health care benefits to all domestic partners of government employees, gay or straight. The next year, Brewer passed House Bill 2013 in the midst of a state budget crisis, which revoked health care benefits to domestic partners and children still on their parents' plan. However, the law was only enforced on homosexual domestic partners, and came into effect in January 2011. Arizona banned same-sex marriage [JURIST report] in 2008.

Several media outlets interpreted the court as being in favor of granting standing. Lambda Legal [advocacy website], one of the plaintiffs, called the court's potential ruling impossible to predict [press release] and remained optimistic: "We continue to hope that the Court will ultimately decide that small groups of unelected individuals who are answerable to no one should not be able to act on behalf of the state."

A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] in June rejected a motion by Proposition 8 supporters to vacate Walker's holding that the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. In March, the Ninth Circuit denied a motion [JURIST report] filed by California Attorney General Kamala Harris [official website] to lift the stay order [JURIST report] prohibiting gay couples from marrying while the appeal is pending. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments [video; JURIST report] in Perry v. Schwarzenegger [case materials] at the end of 2010. The hearing was divided into two one-hour sessions, with the first section focusing on the issue of standing, and the second focusing on Proposition 8's constitutionality.