As previously mentioned, due to general economic circumstances completely outside of our control, we are anticipating a significant reduction in funding (meaning several tens of thousands of dollars) from our primary benefactors for our next fiscal year. If not offset, this reduction has the potential to directly affect JURIST's ability to maintain its current operations. This fund drive is one of the efforts that we've recently launched to try to make up the shortfall.

Please consider donating to JURIST. Even if you are not in a position to give much, please keep in mind that small donations - $25, or even $10 - can go a long way. One of JURIST's strengths is in the number of people it touches every day, from readers to staff to alumni. If everyone of those people could give just a small amount, JURIST would never have to worry about funding again. We know that not everyone is in a position to give, but if you can, even a small amount can make a big difference. For those of you that are able to give more, please know that JURIST will recognize all donors that give $100 or more on its website at jurist.org/supportjurist/honorroll.php.

Thank you - we greatly appreciate your support!

Almost every FBI memorandum described above was labeled "positive intelligence," which means the information in it would be uploaded and retained in FBI intelligence files. Categorizing information about religious beliefs, practices, and otherwise innocent activities as "positive intelligence" could have very serious negative consequences for Muslim groups and their congregants. FBI agents accessing this information in intelligence files would assume it was relevant to the FBI's investigative and intelligence mission, casting a cloud of suspicion over the group or individual mentioned and potentially leading to more intensive scrutiny or investigation. The dissemination of this "positive intelligence" outside the FBI would only increase the likelihood that other law enforcement or intelligence agencies would investigate innocent groups or individuals based solely on their religion. Freedom of religion is a foundational element of American democracy, guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution. In order to protect Americans' religious freedom and other First Amendment rights, Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the government from collecting or retaining information about individuals' First Amendment activities in all but very limited circumstances. The FBI's documents demonstrate that it is ignoring these mandates and is misusing outreach to mosques and religious organizations to collect intelligence on American Muslims' religious beliefs and activities. The FBI's conduct, exposed in its own documents, threatens to chill American Muslims' religious rights, exploits the good faith of Muslim groups and their members, and undermines community support for the government's legitimate community outreach efforts.

The FBI has come under controversy for its investigation of Muslims in the US before. US Attorney General Eric Holder in August invoked the state secrets privilege [JURIST report] to block evidence in a lawsuit against the FBI over its investigation into Muslim mosques. The Department of Justice also filed a motion to dismiss claims and for summary judgment contending that without such privileged information many of the claims against the FBI could not continue. The ACLU and the Council on American-Islamic Relations of California brought a lawsuit on behalf of three Muslim individuals in California against the FBI alleging that during its "Operation Flex," FBI investigators infiltrated mosques and indiscriminately collected information on innocent Muslims simply because they were Muslim. In 2009, FBI Director Robert Mueller said the FBI will continue investigating mosques [JURIST report] when there may be evidence or information regarding criminal wrongdoings after the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan sent a complaint to Holder alleging the FBI had been asking members of the Islamic community to spy on religious leaders and followers.

Vartelas presents a firm case for application of the antiretroactivity principle. Neither his sentence, nor the immigration law in effect when he was convicted and sentenced, blocked him from occasional visits to his parents in Greece. Current [the IIRIRA], if applied to him, would thus attach "a new disability" to conduct over and done well before the provision's enactment. Beyond genuine doubt, we note, the restraint [the IIRIRA] places on lawful permanent residents like Vartelas ranks as a "new disability." Once able to journey abroad to fulfill religious obligations, attend funerals and weddings of family members, tend to vital financial interests, or respond to family emergencies, permanent residents situated as Vartelas is now face potential banishment. We have several times recognized the severity of that sanction.

Panagis Vartelas, a lawful resident in the US for 24 years, pleaded guilty to a crime before the law was ratified and then left the US briefly and was denied reentry. JURIST Guest Columnists Ira Kurzban and Christopher Rickerd of Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A. argued that the Supreme Court should not retroactively apply certain immigration laws when deciding Vartelas in Retroactive Application of Immigration Law is Impermissible [JURIST comment]. They agreed with the majority that retroactive application was inappropriate because such a ruling would impose a new disability on the settled expectation of free travel by lawfully permanent residents.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 addresses the concurrent-vs.-consecutive decision, but not the situation here. ... This does not mean, as Setser and the Government claim, that the District Court lacked authority to act as it did. ... [I]t is more natural to read §3584(a) as leaving room for the exercise of judicial discretion in situations not covered than it is to read §3621(b) as giving the Bureau [of Prisons] what amounts to sentencing authority.

The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in December. Interestingly, the government had conceded the issue and argued on behalf of petitioner that the federal judge exceeded his authority by making the consecutive/concurrent decision in the absence of a state sentence. Rather, that decision would lie with the federal Bureau of Prisons, which would consider several factors including a recommendation from the sentencing judge. Appointed counsel arguing in support of the Fifth Circuit opinion argued that § 3584, which instructs when sentences ought or ought not be consecutive or concurrent, did not address the situation at bar, and therefore the federal judiciary retained its inherent power to sentence, including discretion to make the sentence run concurrently or not.

[A]pplying traditional rules of construction, we hold that the Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize an award of damages for mental or emotional distress. Accordingly, the Act does not waive the Federal Government's sovereign immunity from liability for such harms.

The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in December. The government argued that Congress, by specifically excluding general damages, did not provide for damages for mental and emotional distress or, at least, did not clearly waive sovereign immunity. Asserting the dichotomy of special (or economic) damages versus general damages, inclusive of damages for mental and emotional distress, the government insisted that only damages of pecuniary nature could be recovered from the government under the Privacy Act. Cooper insisted that the government's argument unnecessarily introduced ambiguity into the statute, undermining the purpose of the Act, and that the plain meaning of "actual damages" is proved damages, as opposed to presumed damages. Cooper further argued that under the government's construction of the statute, intentional and willful violations of the act, such as a whistleblower the government wants to silence by leaking embarrassing details to the press as opposed to outright firing, would have no remedy because they are not out of pocket any money.

Neiss previously held [JURIST report] that the new law is unconstitutional because it impermissibly eliminates the right of suffrage for constitutionally qualified voters. This holding followed a temporary injunction [JURIST report] of the Wisconsin law by Circuit Court Judge David Flanagan who said that the law was more restrictive than similar laws that have been upheld in other states. Since Wisconsin's voter ID law was first introduced, there have been four challenges to it. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Wisconsin and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty [advocacy websites] filed a federal lawsuit in December, as did the Advancement Project [JURIST reports] in February. There are now 31 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, including 15 states that require photo ID, but the issue remains controversial.

Besigye's last prosecution gained international attention. He was arrested in 2011 [JURIST report] for his involvement in the "Walk to Work" protests. Earlier that year, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] urged [JURIST report] Uganda's government to stop using what she called excessive force against Besigye and other protesters. Besigye is the leader of Uganda's most prominent opposition party, the Forum for Democratic Change [party website]. He lost to incumbent President Yoweri Museveni [BBC profile] in elections held in February 2010. The elections were criticized by the opposition as fraudulent [Guardian report]. Besigye also ran for president [BBC report] in 2002 and 2006, and, prior to that, he was Museveni's personal doctor. In October 2010, Uganda's Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed treason charges [JURIST report] against Besigye and 10 co-defendants, ruling that there was insufficient evidence and that the state had violated the defendants' rights. Besigye had been charged [JURIST report] with plotting to forcefully overthrow the Ugandan government between 2001 and 2004 but had always maintained his innocence, calling the charges against him politically motivated.

Many states have recently passed laws restricting abortion. Last week, Utah passed a law [JURIST report] requiring a woman seeking an abortion to wait 72 hours prior to obtaining the procedure. Earlier last week, the Idaho State Senate approved a bill [JURIST report] requiring a woman who is seeking an abortion to first receive an ultrasound. Earlier this month, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell [official website] signed a similar ultrasound bill into law [JURIST report]. Earlier in March, the Georgia House of Representatives passed a ban on abortions after five months into a pregnancy [JURIST report]. In February, the US District Court for the Western District of Texas [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that Texas can enforce a state law requiring women to receive a sonogram before obtaining an abortion. In July, the North Carolina state legislature overrode a governor's veto [JURIST report] to pass a law requiring a 24-hour waiting period for a woman seeking an abortion.

The US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] voted to repeal DOMA [JURIST report] in November, marking the first time a Congressional group has voted to repeal the law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage. In a similar case in October, a disabled Navy veteran filed a notice of appeal [JURIST report] with the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims [official website] for denying her partner a share of her disability benefits under DOMA. The Department of Veterans Affairs [official website] allegedly told the veteran she could not receive benefits because her spouse was a woman. In March 2011, congressional Democrats introduced the Respect for Marriage Act [text], which was intended to repeal DOMA [JURIST report], but it has not yet passed. Last year, US President Barack Obama announced that he would continue to fight for the repeal [JURIST report] of DOMA. Also last year, the US Department of Justice announced that it would no longer defend the constitutionality [JURIST report] of Section 3 of DOMA in court cases challenging the provision.

Many government officials have come under fire in recent years for special detention and torture practices. In September the Council of Europe [official website] Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg urged [JURIST report] Lithuania, Poland and Romania to investigate the roles their governments played in the US CIA's program of "secret detention and torture" of terrorism suspects. In June of that year, US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] announced that he would continue investigating the deaths of two detainees [JURIST report] who died during interrogations by the CIA. In February, human rights advocacy groups urged the signatory states of the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) [text] to pursue criminal charges [JURIST report] against former US president George W. Bush [JURIST news archive] in connection with allegations of enhanced interrogation techniques [JURIST news archive]. In January, a federal judge told the CIA that it must investigate the destruction of the interrogation tapes [JURIST report] related to individuals detained after 9/11 [JURIST news archive] and prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. Advocacy groups have also called for investigations into Bush-era torture practices by the Spanish government [JURIST report].

In 2009 a sharply divided Montana Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that physician-assisted suicide is not banned by state law, making Montana the third state to allow the practice after Oregon and Washington. The court upheld in part and reversed in part a lower court ruling, agreeing with the finding that physician-assisted suicide is not illegal under state law, but giving no opinion on the greater constitutional question addressed by the lower court. Instead, it found in a 4-3 decision that physician-assisted suicide was not rendered illegal under state statute or by public policy concerns. In November 2008, voters in Washington state approved a ballot initiative [JURIST report] that allows terminally ill, legally competent adults to obtain lethal prescriptions without exposing themselves, their physicians or others to criminal penalties. The Washington measure was modeled on neighboring Oregon's Death with Dignity Act [official materials], enacted in 1997 and upheld by the US Supreme Court [JURIST report] in 2006.

AI sent the letter just as it released the numbers for death penalty cases for 2011, reporting that executions rose worldwide [JURIST report] last year. This year's report marks a change from previous years, since the number of executions decreased in 2010 and 2009 [JURIST reports]. Last month JURIST guest columnist Nadia Bernaz of Middlesex University Law Department wrote that Iraq is not complying with its obligation to respect international law on the right to life, and the UN should, at a minimum, demand that Iraq limit its use of the death penalty [JURIST op-ed]. Last year Illinois abolished the death penalty [JURIST report], becaming the sixteenth US state to do so. Also last year, China dropped the death penalty for 13 non-violent crimes [JURIST report], including the crimes of teaching crime-committing methods and robbing ancient cultural ruins.

The Government has consistently maintained that this case is not about freedom of speech or association, but about the specific acts of violence alleged in the Indictment. ... However, much of the Government's evidence against Defendants at trial was in the form of speeches, primarily by Stone, Sr., who frequently made statements describing law enforcement as the enemy, discussing the killing of police officers, and the need to go to war.

The trial began [JURIST report] in Robert's courtroom in February. In May 2010 Roberts granted bail for the nine members of the group. Roberts ruled that bail would be granted [JURIST report] but that the eight men and one woman must relinquish weapons and weapons permits, remain confined to their homes and be kept under electronic surveillance. The group members allegedly planned to kill Michigan law enforcement officers by, among other methods, making phony 911 calls and ambushing those who responded. There is some evidence that right-wing nativist and so-called "patriot" anti-government militias such as the Hutaree are on the rise in the US. A 2009 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) [advocacy website] noted that these groups are making a comeback [JURIST report] after declining for a number of years. The SPLC said that such groups are generally anti-tax, anti-immigration, and increasingly racially motivated since the election of the country's first African-American president, Barack Obama. The SPLC also warned that these groups could soon pose a security risk to the country, quoting one official as saying "[a]ll it's lacking is a spark. I think it's only a matter of time before you see threats and violence."

Washington attorney Paul Clement argued on behalf of Florida and 25 other states, followed by attorney Michael Carvin, representing the National Federation of Independent Businesses [official website], all of whom are challenging the individual mandate. Clement argued that Congress does not have the power to mandate that people participate in commerce, a practice he claims is essentially "creating commerce" in order to regulate. He responded to challenges that Congress has essentially created commerce before, for example by creating a national bank, by claiming that such action would not have been upheld if Congress had tried to force every citizen to put money in the bank. He also argued that this regulation is of the health insurance market, not the health care market, and everybody is not a part of the health insurance market, as insurance is not the only way to pay for health services. To bring people into this market, Clement argued, is not within Congress' power to regulate. He also claimed that this market is no different than any other, as a person's choice not to participate in other forms of commerce also results in higher prices for everyone in those markets and loss of jobs to people working in them—but Congress cannot mandate participation in every such market. Clement went on to differentiate health insurance from car insurance, which citizens of all states are required to purchase, for two reasons: first, people can opt out of the requirement by choosing not to have a car, and second, because state laws mandate car insurance, there is no conflict with the limited scope of the Commerce Clause. Finally, Clement argued that the individual mandate is not a tax, as Congress did not call it a tax and it is not structured like one. He also stated that, if it was a tax, it would be a direct tax and thus unconstitutional. Following Clement, Carvin reiterated that the individual mandate is outside of Congress' Commerce Clause power, arguing that the government's main focus is on the costs that result when emergencies and catastrophes happen to those who are uninsured, whereas the majority of the plans people will be forced to buy cover routine health issues, and people have the right to choose not to purchase and participate in such plans. Carvin also argued that the individual mandate is unprecedented, specifically because in all other markets Congress can only restrict and regulate a person once they have voluntarily entered, but cannot compel a person to enter in the first place. On Wednesday the court will hear final arguments regarding whether Congress overstepped its bounds in requiring states to adopt new coverage and eligibility standards in order to remain in the Medicaid program.