State responses to inadequate federal immigration law continue to create controversy. The South Carolina legislation was recently challenged [complaint, PDF] by a coalition of civil rights groups [JURIST report], including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) [advocacy websites] and others who claim it invites racial profiling and interferes with federal law. The US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama [official website] denied similar motions for injunction against that state's recently passed immigration law [JURIST reports]. In August, the state of Arizona filed a petition for writ of certiorari [JURIST report] with the US Supreme Court seeking to overturn a lower court decision enjoining four provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive], on which the South Carolina and Alabama legislation is modeled.

The trial comes two years after the National Human Rights Commission [official website] filed a case with the Supreme Court in which it took issue [press release] with the lack of prosecution in the case. The Supreme Court ordered [decision, PDF] an investigation into the conduct of the trial as well as the protection of witnesses. In 2004 Human Rights Watch [official website] issued a report [finding, PDF] urging witness protection for those involved in the case after allegations [JURIST report] of threats and pressure from the state arose.

The UNJHRO urges the Government to intensify its cooperation with civil society, to issue public messages calling for State agents, especially members of the security forces, to promote and respect human rights and to fight impunity of State agents responsible for human rights violations by holding them accountable. The UNJHRO calls upon the international community to step up its efforts to support the Government of the DRC, civil society, and other stakeholders in efforts to train security forces and judicial officers on fundamental freedoms. Political parties must also issue public statements promoting peaceful participation in the electoral process and specifically call upon their supporters, especially youth, to refrain from violence and incitement thereto, and to respect and promote national laws and public order.

The DRC has faced numerous human rights violations in the past. In June, four policemen were sentenced [JURIST report] to death for killing a prominent human rights activist. In February, a military official and his subordinates were sentenced for mass rape [JURIST report] that occurred on New Year's Eve. In addition to human rights violations, the DRC faced some minor issues such as arresting [JURIST report] six election officials for ballot fraud but there has been no violence related to election reported.

Mahmoudi's extradition is the latest legal episode in an ongoing effort by Libyan and international courts to investigate officials in Gaddafi's government [JURIST report]. In June, the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] issued arrest warrants [decision, PDF; JURIST report] for Gaddafi, as well as two high-ranking officials in his regime, for crimes against humanity. ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official website] declared before the Pre-Trial Chamber that his office had obtained direct evidence [JURIST report] that shows Gaddafi personally ordered attacks on civilian protesters and that his army used live ammunition on crowds, fired at people in funeral processions, and placed snipers to shoot people leaving mosques after prayer services. Earlier in June, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] decided to extend its investigation [JURIST report] of human rights abuses in Libya. In a 92-page report [text, PDF], the UNHRC declared that Gaddafi's regime committed murder, rape, torture, and forced disappearance "as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population with knowledge of the attack."

Last week, in a statement to the UN Security Council, Ocampo detailed the charges [JURIST report] against al-Senussi and Saif al-Islam as well as what is being done to secure their capture. Late last month, the two reportedly attempted to leave Libya in an effort to surrender themselves [JURIST report] to the ICC, according to the National Transitional Council (NTC) [official website]. Earlier in the month, Ocampo said that he has evidence against Saif al-Islam for his role in planning attacks on Libyan civilians [JURIST report]. According to Ocampo, Saif al-Islam hired mercenaries to assist him in carrying out his plans to attack civilians that protested the rule of his father. The "substantial evidence" against Saif al-Islam is mostly in the form of witness reports, and the court remains in indirect contact with him, where there has been talk of a possible surrender [JURIST reports]. The ability of the ICC to negotiate a possible surrender of Saif al-Islam is a result of his desire to avoid the fate of his father, who was killed by opposition fighters [JURIST report] in October.

The bill was passed in March, but was placed on referendum after opponents collected 915,456 signatures [JURIST reports] in July. Anti-union and anti-collective bargaining laws have been a major issue of controversy in the US this year. In July, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Idaho [official website] issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] blocking the enforcement of an Idaho anti-union law [SB 1007, PDF] that bans a union program that would subsidize employment for its members. In March, the New Hampshire House of Representatives [official website] passed an amendment to their current budget that would require public employees to make concessions automatically [AP report] or become at-will employees. Earlier in March, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker [official website] signed a bill [JURIST report] limiting the rights of state workers to collectively bargain. Although the law was enjoined by judicial order, it has since been upheld [JURIST report] by the Wisconsin Supreme Court [official website].

The proposition was a response to the 2009 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [HR 3590 text; JURIST backgrounder], which requires all Americans buy some form of health care coverage. The health care law's constitutionality has been challenged in multiple lawsuits. Last month, the American Center for Legal Justice (ACLJ) [advocacy website] and 105 members of Congress filed an amicus brief [JURIST report] with the US Supreme Court [official website], urging the court to take up a Florida case challenging the law. In September, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] and a group of 26 states filed petitions with the Supreme Court [JURIST report] seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of PPACA. The petitions for certiorari filed by the DOJ and states [cert. petitions, PDF] seek review of a decision handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] in August. The Eleventh Circuit found the PPACA individual health care mandate unconstitutional [JURIST report] but upheld the remainder of the law without the mandate. The Supreme Court is likely to rule on the issue next summer.

Last month, Brammertz said that he would not appeal the court's decision to proceed with a single trial [JURIST report] for Mladic. The prosecutor sought to separate the indictment [JURIST report] in order to hold one trial for Mladic's conduct during the Srebrenica massacre [JURIST news archive], where approximately 8,000 people were killed, and one for all of his other charges during the Bosnian civil war. The court denied [press release] the prosecutor's request on the grounds that separating the trials would be inefficient and could prejudice Mladic and unduly burden witnesses. Brammertz had argued that splitting the trials was warranted [AP report] because Mladic's health may decline over the course of the trial. Mladic was hospitalized [JURIST report] earlier in the month, allegedly due to pneumonia. Serbian authorities captured Mladic [JURIST report] in May, ending a 16-year manhunt. In August, Hadzic entered a not guilty plea to the charges against him after refusing to enter a plea in July following his extradition to the Hague. [JURIST reports].

SEC civil penalties, most especially in a case involving such lucrative misconduct as insider trading, are designed, most importantly, to make such unlawful trading "a money-losing proposition not just for this defendant, but for all who would consider it, by showing that if you get caught ... you are going to pay severely in monetary terms."

Rajaratnam was sentenced to 11 years in prison [JURIST report] last month after he was convicted of orchestrating the largest insider trading case in US history. The jury found him guilty of nine counts of securities fraud and five counts of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and others have been implicated in the insider trading scheme with Rajaratnam. Danielle Chiesi pleaded guilty in January and settled with the SEC [JURIST reports] in July. Former IBM senior vice president Robert Moffat was sentenced to six months in prison last September and was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine for his role in the scheme after pleading guilty [JURIST reports] in March 2010. Former Intel Capital executive Rajiv Goel pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to insider trading charges in February 2010. Rajaratnam, Chiesi, Goel and Moffat were arrested in October 2009 and charged [complaint, PDF] along with two other individuals and two business entities. The complaint alleged that the individuals provided Galleon Group and another hedge fund with material nonpublic information about several corporations upon which the funds traded, generating $25 million in illicit gain.

No property acquired by the exercise of eminent domain under the laws of the State of Mississippi shall, for a period of ten years after its acquisition, be transferred or any interest therein transferred to any person, non-governmental entity, public-private partnership, corporation, or other business entity ...

The power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use is a doctrine long held. States can enact limitations on government takings to further citizen protections flowing from the Fifth Amendment. Last year voters in Nevada rejected a ballot initiative [JURIST report] that would have expanded state power by defining five exceptions to an existing general prohibition against exercising eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another. The restriction on the state's ability to use eminent domain to acquire private property was approved by voters through a ballot initiative in 2008, which was originally voted on in 2006 [JURIST reports]. In 2009 Texas voters approved an initiative [JURIST report] to prohibit government officials from taking private property and allotting it to private buyers for the purpose of economic development or to increase tax revenues unless the property owner consents. The Texas measure further limited government ability to enforce eminent domain by requiring approval of two-thirds of the bicameral legislature. New Jersey limited the exercise of eminent domain [JURIST report] in 2007, although it was through the New Jersey Supreme Court [official website] rather than a ballot initiative. The Connecticut legislature approved eminent domain restrictions [JURIST report] in the same year. During the 2006 mid-term elections voters in nine states approved ballot initiatives [JURIST report] restricting the use of eminent domain.

It certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty, but it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race ... or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family. ... The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins.

This latest decision regarding the constitutionality of the PPACA's individual mandate is perhaps yet another step toward the law's ultimate fate in the US Supreme Court [official website]. As of now, there are three health care appeals pending before the court. In October, both the state of Virginia and Liberty University appealed a ruling [JURIST report] made by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] that rejected all claims based on a lack of standing. Shortly before that, in September, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) along with 26 individual states asked the court to review a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website], which asserted that the PPACA's individual mandate is unconstitutional [JURIST report], but that the remainder of the act is not. While the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] upheld the PPACA's individual mandate in June, the decision was also appealed [JURIST reports] to the Supreme Court by the Thomas More Law Center.

For more information, see JURIST's feature on Health Care Reform.

Also Tuesday, Washington electorates passed [Patch.com report] Senate Joint Resolution 8205 [text, PDF] by 71 percent, which brings the state in line on voter residency requirements. The law amends the Washington state constitution [text] to reduce the residency requirement for voting in presidential elections from 60 days to 30. These regulations had already been in effect in the state since the US Supreme Court ruled in Dunn v. Blumstein [opinion text] that residency requirements beyond 30 days were unconstitutional.

Finally, 60 percent of Mainers voted to repeal [Bangor Daily News report] Chapter 399 of the Public Laws of 2011, An Act to Preserve the Integrity of the Voter Registration and Election Process [text], which required registering to vote at least two days before the election. The repeal will reinstate a 38-year-old practice of same-day voter registration in Maine.

There is a presumptive prohibition on most forms of gambling in the US, although in Europe such bans have been found to violate EU law. The Washington Supreme Court [official website] ruled last year that a state ban on online gambling [JURIST report] is constitutional. That month, the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] delivered three judgments striking down gambling restrictions [JURIST report] in Germany because the regulations were not designed to protect public interest. The ECJ upheld a Swedish law restricting Internet gambling [JURIST report]. The ECJ held that bans on Internet gambling were acceptable for cultural, moral or religious reasons, but there should be no discrimination. The court concluded that Sweden's ban on Internet gambling was in line with EU laws, but that the nation's lottery laws were not allowed to penalize foreign gambling agencies differently from domestic agencies. In 2006, the US signed a significant ban on Internet gambling [JURIST report], making it illegal for banks or credit card companies to process transactions involving Internet gambling. However, enforcement of the law has been delayed [JURIST report].

The Supreme Court of Mississippi [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] in September that the initiative could be placed on the ballot [JURIST report]. The ruling came after two Mississippi citizens filed a lawsuit claiming the initiative violated Article 15, Section 273(5)(a) [text, PDF] of the Mississippi Constitution. The court refused to rule on the constitutionality of the initiative itself, but concluded that it could not interfere with or question the validity of a legislative proposal prior to the election. The court, therefore, ultimately dismissed the challenge on the basis that Measure 26 is not ripe for review. Colorado voters struck down [Denver Post report] a similar ballot initiative [text, PDF] in November 2010 that would have amended the state's constitution [text] to extend rights to fetuses [JURIST report] and would have effectively outlawed abortion. In November 2007, the Colorado Supreme Court [official website] approved the language of an anti-abortion group's proposed ballot initiative that would amend the Colorado constitution [JURIST report] to define a fertilized egg as a "person" entitled to "inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law" under the state constitution. JURIST Guest Columnist Caitlin Borgmann argues that redefining personhood is just one of several approaches aimed at curtailing abortion [JURIST op-ed].