Same-sex marriage has been a controversial issue in France. Earlier in June, Prime Minister Jean-Marc Aryault announced [JURIST report] that laws legalizing marriage and adoptions for same-sex couples will be introduced. Last year the Constitutional Council [official website, in French] ruled [JURIST report] that the country's same-sex marriage ban does not violate the constitution. The council emphasized it may only interpret existing laws under the constitution, but that the legislature has the power to make new laws allowing gay marriage. The Court of Cassation [official website, in French], the country's highest court of appeals, ordered the Constitutional Council in November 2010 to rule on the constitutionality [JURIST report] of the law. The order was made after a gay French couple challenged the ban in a Reims court, saying it limited their personal freedoms.

On Monday the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS) urged South Sudan to adopt a plan to prevent further inter-communal violence [JURIST report] in Jonglei State. The report was completed based on information gathered through 20 field missions by UNMISS with the support of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The report revealed that there were 612 fatalities during the armed conflict between Lou Nuer and Murle ethnic groups between December 23 and January 4. In February Human Rights Watch (HRW) had called on South Sudan to investigate the ethnic conflict [JURIST report] sparked by the attacks made on Murle villages and to prosecute those responsible for the violence. In December around 6,000 to 8,000 armed Lou Nuer youths calling themselves "White Army" invaded the Murle villages for 12 days, robbing and burning houses and killing thousands of people. In response, the Murles groups initiated retaliatory attacks on Lou Nuer and Bor Dinka areas which lasted until February 4.

Last Friday, a New York judge approved [JURIST report] a $410 million settlement agreement between hedge fund manager Ezra Merkin and the state of New York in a lawsuit connected with the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme. The case against Merkin was filed in 2009, accusing him of directing funds into Madoff's Ponzi scheme and charging him with violations of the Martin Act, General Business Law § 352 and Executive Law § 63(12). In March, Madoff trustee Irving Picard and the owners of the New York Mets reached [JURIST report] a $162 million settlement for victims of the Ponzi scheme to avoid a trial.

Human rights violations against workers are not an isolated phenomenon. In December of last year, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] reported [JURIST report] that more than 20,000 children are subject to inhumane conditions while working in Malian gold mines. The gold mined by the children is exported through the international stream of commerce with Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates as the industry's two major purchasers. A month earlier, HRW also reported [JURIST report] that Chinese copper mining companies in Zambia were violating national and international labor standards forcing employees to work 12 to 18 hours a day and prohibiting unionization of employees.

The ICTR has begun transferring cases to the Rwandan national court system. On Monday, the ICTR transferred [JURIST report] the case of Aloys Ndimbati [case materials], a former local government official in Rwanda who has been charged [indictment, PDF] with genocide, complicity in genocide, incitement to commit genocide, and crimes against humanity including murder, rape, and persecution, to the authorities of the Republic of Rwanda. Earlier this month, the case of Bernard Munyagishari [case materials] was transferred [JURIST report] to the country's court system being the fifth case to be transferred. In May, the case of Ladislas Ntaganzwa [case materials] was transferred [JURIST report] to the Rwandan national court system. Ntaganzwa, a former mayor of Nyakizu commune in Butare, had been charged with with conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, complicity in genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the Geneva Conventions. Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi [case materials], a former Rwandan pastor and a genocide suspect, was the first to be transferred [JURIST report] from the ICTR to the national court. Uwinkindi appealed to the decision to transfer his case but it was rejected [JURIST reports] by the ICTR in December. He has been charged in 2001 with genocide and crimes against humanity. The other two transferred cases are against Fulgence Kayishema [case materials; JURIST report], a former police inspector, and Charles Sikubwabo [case materials], former Bourgmestre of Gishyita, Kibuye Prefecture. Both suspects remain at large.

Earlier this week, the DOJ asked the district court to reject Arpaio's request [JURIST reports] to dismiss the lawsuit against him. The DOJ had conducted a comprehensive and independent investigation of Arpaio initiated in June 2008 under Section 14141 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 [text, PDF] and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [DOJ materials]. After the DOJ found reasonable cause that the sheriff's office engage in a pattern of discriminatory practice, it filed a suit against Arpaio.

Several Kuwaiti prisoners have been continuously transferred to their home country from the US detention facility. In December 2009, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced [JURIST report] that detainee Fouad Al Rabiah has been transferred to Kuwaiti government. Al Rabiah, a Kuwaiti national, had been held at Guantanamo Bay for nearly eight years under suspicion of aiding al Qaeda and the Taliban. Two months earlier, the DOJ announced [JURIST report] that detainee Khaled Al-Mutairi who had been alleged of having fought against American troops in Afghanistan was transferred after his almost eight years of detention after a judge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] ordered [JURIST report] the release in July.

It will be important to scrutinise the early months of the new President, and hold him to account for the actions he takes, or does not take, to get to grips with the pressing human rights priorities in Egypt. Egypt deserves a leadership which is prepared to confront the abuses of the past, restore the rule of law in the present and set out a vision of human rights for all for the future.

Egypt's post-Mubarak political climate has been fractious. Earlier this week, an Egyptian court struck down [JURIST report] a government decree that gave the military broad power to arrest people. Last week, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] expressed concern [JURIST report] that the Egyptian military's expansive power is a threat to human rights. Two weeks ago, the SCAF announced [JURIST report] that it would transfer power to Morsi by the end of the month. Earlier in June, Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court [official website] dissolved the Egyptian Parliament [JURIST report] after discovering that one-third of its members were elected illegally. JURIST contributor Haider Ala Hamoudi recently opined [JURIST op-ed] that the Egyptian high court's decision to dissolve parliament may lead to a power imbalance between the three branches of government that a strong executive could exploit.

The court also declined to hear an appeal in FCC v. CBS Corp. [docket], challenging a decision [JURIST report] by the Third Circuit throwing out a $550,000 fine against CBS that was issued as a result of the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during the halftime show of the 2004 Super Bowl. In a concurrence to the denial of certiorari, Chief Justice John Roberts said that regardless of whether the Third Circuit decision was correct, the court's recent decision in FCC v. Fox [JURIST report] resolves any issue in this case.

The trial against Nuon began [JURIST report] in November with two other Khmer Rouge officials charged with crimes against humanity, breach of international law and genocide. The other two defendants are Khieu Samphan, a former head of state, and Ieng Sary [ECCC profiles], the former foreign minister. Ieng Thirith [ECCC profile], a fourth defendant, was ordered to be released few days earlier by the ECCC due to Alzheimer's.

[T]hese post-September 11 laws, when viewed as a whole, represent a broad and dangerous expansion of government powers to investigate, arrest, detain, and prosecute individuals at the expense of due process, judicial oversight, and public transparency. Such laws merit close attention, not only because many of them restrict or violate the rights of suspects, but also because they can be and have been used to stifle peaceful political dissent or to target particular religious, ethnic, or social groups.

Terrorism continues to be an important legal issue both in the US and abroad. Earlier this week, police in India arrested a new suspect [JURIST report] in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Last week, a New York native and terror suspect pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to providing material support to al Qaeda [JURIST news archive]. In May, police in Sri Lanka released the names [JURIST report] of thousands of people being held under the nation's anti-terror laws.

Munyarugama's case is one of the several cases that have been recently transferred from the ICTR to the country's national court system. On Monday, the ICTR transferred the case of Aloys Ndimbati [case materials], a former local government official charged with genocide, complicity in genocide, incitement to commit genocide, and crimes against humanity including murder, rape, and persecution, to the country's authorities. Earlier this month, the ICTR transferred [JURIST report] the fifth case related to the 1994 genocide to the national court. Bernard Munyagishari [case materials] was charged [indictment, PDF] with conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, complicity in genocide, murder and rape after he was arrested [JURIST report] in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in May last year. In May, the case of Ladislas Ntaganzwa [case materials], a former mayor of Nyakizu commune in Butare who has been charged [indictment, PDF] with conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, complicity in genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the Geneva Conventions, was transferred [JURIST report] to Rwanda. In March, the case of Charles Sikubwabo [Hague Justice profile; case materials] was transferred [JURIST report] to the High Court of Rwanda upon the prosecutors' request [press release; JURIST report] for the referral. It was the last of the three cases that were included in the November 2010 application and transferred to the Rwanda government. The first case ever transferred to Rwanda from the ICTR was that of Rwandan pastor Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi [Hague Justice profile; case materials] which was transferred [JURIST report] to the national court system in June. Uwinkindi was charged with genocide and crimes against humanity relating to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The decision came after the referral chamber found that Rwanda was capable of pursuing the case. In February, the referral chamber transferred [JURIST report] the second case of Fulgence Kayishema [Hague Justice profile; case material] who has been charged with genocide, complicity in genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide and crime against humanity.

The Appellees would have this Court hold that Citizens United repudiated Beaumont's entire reasoning; this we cannot do. Citizens United held that in the context of independent expenditures, the Government could not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. In reaching its decision, the Court did not discuss Beaumont and explicitly declined to address the constitutionality of the ban on direct contributions. ... Nor did the opinion indicate that its "corporations-are-equal-to-people" logic necessarily applies in the context of direct contributions.

Campaign finance laws have been a contentious issue recently. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court struck down [JURIST report] a Montana campaign finance law that restricted the amount of money corporations can spend on campaigns, holding that Citizens United invalidated the Montana law. That decision, American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] reversed a decision by the Montana Supreme Court upholding the law [JURIST report]. In February, the Supreme Court blocked enforcement [JURIST report] of the Montana Supreme Court ruling.

From the moment she committed the first act for which she was convicted, through her trial, sentencing, and appeals, Stewart has persisted in exhibiting what seems to be a stark inability to understand the seriousness of her crimes, the breadth and depth of the danger in which they placed the lives and safety of unknown innocents, and the extent to which they constituted an abuse of her trust and privilege as a member of the bar. We cannot agree with her that the sentence imposed on her was "shockingly high" so as to warrant a finding of substantive unreasonableness.

Stewart was convicted by a jury in 2005 [JURIST report] on charges of conspiracy, giving material support to terrorists and defrauding the US government for smuggling messages from convicted terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman [NNBD profile] to members of his militant Islamic Group [CNS backgrounder]. The Second Circuit affirmed [JURIST report] Stewart's conviction in 2009, but ordered the district court to reconsider her sentence, finding that the current 28-month sentence was "out of line with the extreme seriousness of her criminal conduct." As part of his conviction, Rahman is subject to Special Administrative Measures (SAMs), which limit his ability to communicate with individuals outside the prison. The court found that despite being a lawyer, Stewart was bound by the SAMs and knowingly and willfully lied about her intentions to comply. The court also found that Stewart provided and concealed material support to the conspiracy to murder persons in a foreign country. Federal prosecutors sought the maximum sentence [JURIST report] of 30 years, saying that Stewart's "egregious, flagrant abuse of her profession ... deserves to be severely punished." In 2007, Stewart was disbarred [JURIST report] in the state of New York after her voluntary resignation was rejected.

China has been known for its strict policy against dissidents. Last week, dissident artist Ai Weiwei [BBC profile] was banned from attending the first hearing in the case brought by his company, Fake Cultural Development Ltd., against Beijing tax authorities, despite the fact that the Chinese court had agreed to hear [JURIST reports] the case in early May. Filming and key witnesses were excluded from the courthouse while other rights activists such as Hu Jia [advocacy blog; JURIST news archive] were also barred from attending the hearing. In May the blind Chinese human rights activist Chen Guangcheng [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] asked the US to increase its effort in promoting the rule of law in China a week following his arrival in New York after he left the US embassy [JURIST reports] in early May.

My initial reaction when the decision was announced that the insurance mandate was upheld was that it was a dark day for the Constitution and for American liberty. However, upon analyzing the 193 pages of opinions from the court, I contend that—while I do not agree with the majority's result—there was a silver lining in that the court affirmed that the Commerce Clause—the constitutional vehicle the federal government was attempting to use to compel citizens to buy health insurance—only allows Congress to regulate people who are currently engaged in commercial activity. In this way, the court affirmed that there ARE constitutional limits to Congress's power. This represents the court's first express acknowledgement of the actual limits on the federal government's commerce power since the New Deal.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld PPACA [JURIST report] in a 5-4 decision, which many have described as a 1-4-4 decision due to Chief Justice John Roberts' controlling majority opinion. Roberts found that the law's mandate to purchase health care or receive a fine was permissible under Congress' taxing power [Cornell LII backgrounder]. His opinion delineated that he did not believe it was constitutional under the Commerce Clause [Cornell LII backgrounder], although the four justices who joined his opinion wrote separately to suggest that the mandate was valid under that reasoning as well. The four justices in dissent argued that the entire act was invalid under any reasoning because the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the Act, and the mandate was unconstitutional. The majority opinion also narrowly construed the application of the PPACA to the states' rights to control Medicaid funds.

Republican Representative Darrell Issa [official website] initiated the contempt action as the leader of the House investigation. Last week, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee [official website] voted [press release] to find Holder in contempt for failing to provide the information needed in their investigation. The Department of Justice [official website] prepared a report [PDF] for the House committee last July which discussed the effect of the admittedly failed operation in Mexico. The House has been investigating Operation Fast and Furious [investigation website] since April 2011.

Demjanjuk was convicted in German Court [JURIST report] in May 2011 and sentenced to five years in prison, however he was released to a nursing home due to his age and deteriorating health. In May 2010, a German judge denied a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] the charges due to lack of evidence. He was found fit to stand trial [JURIST report] in that court in October 2009 against allegations by Demjanjuk and his family that he was too old and sick to go through a trial. He was deported to Germany [JURIST report] from the U.S. in May 2009 after the US Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal of a 2005 deportation order [JURST reports] by a US Chief Immigration Judge.

Tear gas, rubber bullets, live ammunition and other heavy-handed suppression will not resolve the frustrations and grievances of the people regarding shortcomings in their enjoyment of economic, social, civil and political rights. Genuine dialogue with Government critics is far more effective than arbitrary detention and violence if the Government wishes to create a stable and successful society.

Sudan has been continuously urged to improve its human rights situation. Last week, Mashood Adebayo Baderin, the newly appointed UN Independent Expert on Human Rights in Sudan, stated that the country must still work to improve freedoms of expression and the press [JURIST report]. In May, AI urged the country's government to stop its censorship [JURIST report] of journalists and immediately cease its practice of seizing newspapers from the printing press.

The internal tension between the Secretary General and the judges appointed for the tribunal has been ongoing. Two years after Ban appointed the judges, they charged [JURIST report] the UN chief with attempting to limit their powers and "undermine the integrity of the Tribunal and its independence" through his recommendations outlined in an August 8 report [text] to the UN General Assembly (GA) [official website]. The tribunal was established in 2007 pursuant to GA resolution 62/228 [text, PDF] which is divided into Appeals and Dispute Tribunals. The Appeals Tribunal is charged with appellate review of decisions of the Dispute Tribunal, which hears grievance and discipline disputes between UN members. Judges for the tribunals were appointed [JURIST report] in 2009.