First, the State has created two classifications of similarly (in fact, identical) situated individuals who were treated differently (only one class is subject to mandatory sex offender registration). Second, the classification has no rational relation to any legitimate government objective: there is no legitimating rationale in the record to justify targeting only those convicted of Crime Against Nature by Solicitation for mandatory sex offender registration.

US courts have seen numerous constitutional challenges to laws placing restrictions on sex offenders. In January, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled [JURIST report] that a policy in the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, that bans registered sex offenders from entering the city's public libraries is unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties filed a complaint in federal court in August seeking to block a Louisiana law that limits Internet use for registered sex offenders [JURIST report]. In May 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled that mentally ill sex offenders may be civilly committed [JURIST report] beyond their prison sentences.

The decision comes only two weeks after a jury found for families of 2 victims in a negligence case against the Virginia Tech administration [JURIST report]. Virginia Tech has faced several lawsuits over the shooting incident. Last month, a Virginia circuit court judge ruled [JURIST report] that the lawsuit by two families whose children were killed in the shooting could proceed against school administrators, despite their claims of sovereign immunity. The lawsuit [JURIST report], seeking $10 million in damages, accused the administrators of gross negligence for failing to warn students of the shootings immediately after the first shooting at 7:15 AM. It was brought by two families who opted out of an $11 million dollar settlement [JURIST report] to which 24 of the 32 victims' families agreed in June 2008.

Many states have recently passed laws restricting abortion. Earlier this week, the Arizona State Senate approved a bill [JURIST report] that similarly bans abortions after 20 weeks into a pregnancy, with an exception carved out only for medical emergencies. 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 amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution proposed by [the initiative] is intended to, and will, ban abortion in direct violation of both the federal Constitution and this Court's clear declaration the Oklahoma's initiative process may not be invoked for that purpose. Further, it would infringe on a woman's federal constitutional right to decide whether and when to conceive by banning most forms of contraception and effectively prohibiting medical interventions, like in vitro fertilization, that assist with conception.

The Virginia House of Delegates passed [JURIST report] a similar "personhood" bill in February. There has been significant controversy regarding personhood initiatives and the possible ramifications [JURIST commentaries] that come along with them. A similar lawsuit challenging the Mississippi personhood ballot initiate was dismissed [JURIST report] last fall. That initiative was eventually rejected [JURIST report]. In 2007, the Colorado Supreme Court [official website] allowed [JURIST report] another "personhood" ballot initiative with similar language.

Bahrain must ensure that Al-Khawaja is released immediately and unconditionally. The Bahraini authorities have made pledges that they would release people who were imprisoned for exercising their right to freedom of expression, but the continued imprisonment of Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja demonstrates that they are not serious about fulfilling such promises.

The Bahraini government has been subject to numerous criticisms for its use of excessive force against citizen protesters. In early March, based on a report of excessive force by Bahraini security forces, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] called on the government [JURIST report] to investigate the allegations. During that same month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released a report, similar to a report [JURIST report] released in November by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) [official website] about human rights violations against demonstrators, alleging that Bahrain is convicting hundreds of opposition activists [JURIST report] in unfair and politically motivated trials. In February, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] also urged the Bahraini government to respect protesters' rights [JURIST report] and stressed that excessive use of force by the government against civilian demonstrators is strictly forbidden in international law. Pillay made a similar call to the government in December when she said that protesters who were detained during peaceful protests should be released [JURIST report].

Corruption has been an ongoing problem for the Egyptian government. In November Human Right Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] criticized [JURIST report] Egypt's attempt to deal with corruption because the new law to be implemented would allow authorities to imprison anyone convicted of crimes involving "political corruption," which the organization alleges are vaguely defined, as well as deprive convicted persons of their rights to vote and run for office. In September an Egyptian criminal court sentenced three associates [JURIST report] of Mubarak on charges of corruption including illegally manipulating state-owned businesses, granting licenses without merit, misusing public funds and profiteering. In the same month, the former tourism minister was found guilty [JURIST report] of corruption charges. In July, another Egyptian court convicted [JURIST report] former prime minister Ahmed Nazif and two Cabinet officials of corruption and sentenced them to various prison terms.

HRW has previously called on the Afghan government to protect the rights of women. In July 2010 the advocacy group criticized Karzai's integration and reconciliation efforts [JURIST report] to end the conflict with the Taliban and other insurgent groups, claiming that women's rights were bypassed in order to reach an expedient solution. Among HRW's criticisms was the president's decision to sign the Shia Personal Status Law [JURIST report; text, PDF], which legalized rape within marriage, and his pardon of two convicted rapists. In August HRW denounced the Shia Personal Status Law [JURIST report] as a violation of the Afghan Constitution [text] that undermined women's rights, despite an announcement in July 2009 that the provisions requiring a wife to submit to sex with her husband and to obtain his permission before leaving the home had been removed [JURIST report]. Women's rights in Afghanistan faced even greater opposition under the Taliban, which ruled the country from 1996-2001.

Protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals remains a political issue that many are deeply divided on. In November, Massachusetts passed an anti-discrimination bill [JURIST report] that would protect people in the areas of housing and the workplace. Connecticut passed similar legislation [JURIST report] in June, defining "gender identity or expression" and providing protection in the state's existing anti-discrimination laws. Other national action includes measures to stop hate crimes against LGBT individuals. In March, US Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) and Senator Al Franken (D-MN) [official websites] introduced legislation to protect LGBT students from bullying [JURIST report] in federally funded public elementary and high schools.

[T]he Court applauds plaintiffs' persistent efforts to hold Iran accountable for its cowardly support of terrorism. The Court concludes that defendant Iran must be punished to the fullest extent legally possible for the bombing in Beirut on October 23, 1983. This horrific act impacted countless individuals and their families, a number of whom receive awards in this lawsuit. This Court hopes that the victims and their families may find some measure of solace from this Court's final judgment.

In September 2007 Iran dismissed a ruling made by Lamberth only two days earlier that required Iran to compensate [JURIST reports] the families of 241 US military personnel killed in the 1983 bombing of US Marine barracks in Beirut. There, Iran called the $2.65 billion US ruling "baseless" and "politically motivated," as it was the largest judgment ever awarded by a US court against a foreign country. While Iran has consistently been accused of supporting Hezbollah [CFR backgrounder], the militant group behind the bombing, the Islamic Republic has denied responsibility. The American death toll in the 1983 terror attack was the highest on record prior to the 9/11 [JURIST backgrounder].

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!