Virignia is not the first state to pass such legislation, and similar rules have drawn various results when challenged in the court system. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] lifted an injunction [JURIST report] on a Texas law [JURIST report] that requires women to have a sonogram before undergoing an abortion, allowing the law to be enforced. In October, a judge for the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina [official website] issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report], blocking part of the state's abortion law that required a physician to perform an ultrasound and describe the images to the patient. In March of 2010, The Supreme Court of Oklahoma [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that a state law [SB 1878, DOC] imposing broad restrictions on abortion, including the requirement of an ultrasound prior to the procedure, violated that state's constitution.

The integrity of our judicial system depends in no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge's word. The record compels the finding that the trial judge's representations to the parties were solemn commitments. ... We conclude ... that the integrity of the judicial process is a compelling interest that in these circumstances would be harmed by the nullification of the trial judge's express assurances, and that there are no alternatives to maintaining the recording under seal that would protect the compelling interest at issue.

The Ninth Circuit heard arguments [JURIST report] in December on whether the video recordings should be released to the public. There, Proposition 8 supporters, much like their original argument against broadcasting the trial, argued [text, PDF] against the release because it could lead to harassment of their witnesses. The supporters also claimed that the First Amendment right of access has no application in this instance. Proposition 8 opponents argued [text, PDF] that there is no reason not to make the recordings public, and that there is a public interest to do so. Proposition 8 was approved [JURIST report] by California voters in November 2008 and remains legally controversial.

The Trial Chamber examined ... the steps taken by the Lebanese authorities to apprehend the accused and inform them about the proceedings. These efforts included multiple attempts by the Lebanese authorities to find the accused at their last known residences, places of employment, family homes and other locations. The Trial Chamber also took into consideration the fact that the indictment and the identities of the accused received massive publicity in Lebanon...While the STL is the only international Tribunal that can prosecute accused in their absence, it is a measure of last resort to ensure that the pursuit of justice is not paralysed by those who choose to abscond.

Last August the STL announced that it would investigate three additional bomb attacks that may be connected to the February 2005 attack that killed Hariri. Earlier that month, the STL unsealed the indictment against the four individuals accused of the assassination. Also in August the STL president made a public plea for the men to turn themselves in. Judge Antonio Cassese guaranteed a fair trial and adequate representation and pressed Lebanese citizens to allow the STL to hold the assassins accountable. In February 2011 the appeals chamber of the STL issued a unanimous ruling on several procedural issues, including the definition of terrorism, in judicial proceedings. The STL began debate on the issue to determine which laws to apply in the case against the alleged Hariri assasins. Using the Article 314 of the Lebanese Criminal Code, the court held that a conviction on the charge of terrorism requires proof of an act intended to spread terror and use of a means "liable to create a public danger," that the only requirement is that "the means used to carry out the terrorist attack be liable to create a common danger" and that the trial judges should be given latitude in determining whether the requirement was met after having considered the facts presented in the case. The STL was established in 2005 at the request of the Lebanese government to try those alleged to be connected to the bombing in which Hariri was killed by explosions detonated near his motorcade in Beirut.

In November Nashiri made his first court appearance, his first public appearance since he was captured in Dubai in 2002. Nashiri is charged with war crimes under the Military Commission Act of 2009 relating to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 which killed 17 men, the bombing of the MV Limburg in 2002 and a failed plot to attack an American warship, The Sullivans, in 2000. In May of last year, lawyers for Nashiri filed suit against Poland over his supposed torture in a secret CIA prison in the country. In 2007, Nashiri declared that his confession to orchestrating the USS Cole bombing was elicited under torture. Nashiri, along with fellow militant Jamal al-Badawi, was sentenced to death by a Yemeni court in 2004 for his role in the attack on the Cole.

Senegal's highest court ruled [JURIST report] Monday that President Abdoulaye Wade [official profile, in French] can run for a third term, rejecting an appeal by the opposition. The Senegalese Constitution [text, in French] had no term limits when Wade initially took office in 2000, but it was amended in 2001 to impose a two-term limit. After the court's preliminary ruling on Friday, a group of youth protesters were confronted by the police. With legal means of stopping Wade's candidacy now exhausted the country may face instability in the coming weeks. The governments of the US and France have both warned of instability that could result from election-related violence.

A similar suit was filed [JURIST report] in Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims [official website] in October of last year by a disabled Navy veteran contesting the VA's refusal to allow her same-sex partner to collect a portion of her disability benefits. The veteran, Carmen Cardona, filed the suit after her claim for veterans' spousal benefits was denied under DOMA on the basis that she was in a same-sex marriage. The outcome of these cases is uncertain after the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced in February of last year that it would no longer defend the constitutionality [JURIST report] of DOMA in court cases challenging the provision, there is no obligation on federal agencies not to enforce the law. US President Barack Obama [official website] told gay rights activists in October of last year that he would continue to fight for the repeal [JURIST report] of DOMA, reinforcing that the DOJ is not defending its constitutionality.

These proceedings reflect an ongoing struggle between the government and the courts in Pakistan. In December, the Supreme Court formed a judicial committee to investigate a secret memo [JURIST report] sent from an unknown Pakistani source to US Admiral Mike Mullen in May asking for help in preventing a suspected army coup. Zardari and former Pakistan ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani have been accused of writing or having knowledge of the memo, and both have denied these allegations. In October 2011, the Supreme Court issued a judgment urging political parties to stop financing criminal groups [JURIST report] responsible for increased violence in the city of Karachi. The decision stated that militant groups have gained strength because of support from local political groups and order the Pakistani government to help address the corruption. The court struck down the NRO in 2009, which was signed [JURIST report] by former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] in 2007.

The House of Representatives [official website] is expected to pass the bill soon. Governor Christine Gregoire [official website], a major supporter of the movement, has sworn to sign the bill [JURIST report] on several occasions, and on Wednesday released a statement [text] commending the Senate.

Washington is poised to become the eighth jurisdiction in the US to legalize same-sex marriage [US map]. In a similar situation, New Jersey is considering legalizing same-sex marriage soon, although it currently has a civil union system in place. In November, a lawsuit [JURIST report] was allowed to continue in New Jersey, which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the state civil union law as a contravention of both the Fourteenth Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder] and the New Jersey State Constitution. Same-sex marriage has been legalized in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia [JURIST reports]. The case for same-sex marriage was recently made by JURIST contributor Kimberly Bennett in Judicial Activism and the Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage [JURIST op-ed].