Russia has long struggled with the acceptance of homosexuality. In August LGBT activists brought suit over the Russian Justice Ministry's refusal to register Pride House [JURIST report] for the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games. Also that month Russia's best-known gay rights activist Nikolay Alexeyev lost a court challenge [JURIST report] to Moscow's 100-year municipal ban on gay pride marches. He intends to appeal the decision to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which has already ordered Russia to pay Alexeyev [JURIST report] an award of €12,000 for non-pecuniary damages plus €17,510 for costs and attorneys fees (USD $41,090 total) for rejecting his license application for a gay pride gathering. In March St. Petersburg announced that the city's governor had signed into law a bill that would impose fines against people convicted of promoting homosexuality, including gays or lesbians who are open about their sexuality. Individuals convicted under the law would be subject to fines between 3,000 and 5,000 rubles (US $100-160) [Moscow Times report], while organizations could be fined up to 50,000 rubles for "promoting" homosexuality. In December Senior Lecturer of Sociology at the University of Surrey Paul Johnson [university profile] wrote that the latest ban by Russian authorities on the promotion of homosexuality to minors is only the most recent violation of the ECHR ruling [JURIST comment] on the subject.

Motorola has been very active in German courts both seeking to protect and asserting its intellectual property. In July a German court granted an injunction for Microsoft Corp. [corporate website] against Motorola in a patent infringement case over EP0618540 [JURIST report] which involved technology relating to common names for long and short file allocation tables. Also in July a German court dismissed a patent infringement suit by Microsoft Corp. over EP1304891 [JURIST report] which monitors different functions on a smartphone and provides such information to other applications utilizing them. Another case that was brought by Microsoft against Motorola Mobility involving a patent on system input methods is postponed to September 20. In February Apple sued Motorola in the US District Court for the Southern District of California [official website] seeking an injunction [JURIST report] to stop Motorola from bringing patent claims against Apple in Germany, alleging that the German suit violates a licensing agreement between Motorola and Qualcomm.

Tobacco products have been subject to stricter regulations around the world, resulting in increased litigation over the legality of such measures. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in August that tobacco companies do not need to print graphic warnings [JURIST report] of the dangers of smoking on cigarette packages. In a 2-1 decision, the DC Circuit struck down a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation that requires tobacco companies to display graphic images such as a man smoking a cigarette through a hole in his throat. Earlier that month the High Court of Australia [official website] upheld a law that bans brand logos on tobacco products [JURIST report] and requires cigarette packages to display graphic warning images. In July the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down [JURIST report] a New York City Department of Health regulation requiring stores to display graphic anti-tobacco ads where tobacco products are sold.

Immigration law [JURIST backgrounder] has became a hot button issue over the past few years as many states, Arizona being the first, have passed laws giving state and local officials more power to crack down on illegal immigration. In August the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] several provisions of Alabama's controversial immigration law [HB 56, PDF], upheld a few sections of the law and rejected part of Georgia's immigration law [HB 87, text]. That same month, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] again heard arguments [JURIST report] on two anti-illegal immigrant laws enacted in 2006 by the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, which deny permits to businesses that employ illegal immigrants and fine landlords who extend housing to them. In July a judge for the US District Court for the District of South Carolina [official website] declined to lift an injunction [JURIST report] against South Carolina's controversial immigration law [SB 20 materials], despite the recent Supreme Court ruling. The lawsuit against the South Carolina immigration law was put on hold [JURIST report] in January pending the outcome of Arizona v. United States. Last May the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center filed a class action lawsuit challenging Utah's immigration law, the same month that the ACLU filed a class action [JURIST reports] in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana [official website] challenging that state's immigration law.

Forrest issued an injunction against the law in May, and clarified in the following weeks that her injunction should be interpreted broadly [JURIST reports]. Lawyers for the government filed their appeal [JURIST report] with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] in August. US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law [JURIST report] on December 31, 2011. Upon signing, he noted [statement], "I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation." Both houses of Congress reached an agreement [JURIST report] on the language of the NDAA's most controversial sections in mid-December.

However compelling, these [government] interests are insufficient to vitiate Plaintiffs' showing of a likelihood of success on the merits. As elucidated earlier, the financial information the Act subjects to disclosure is quite sensitive. Furthermore, the data's publication portends substantial harm seeing that it stands to affect such a large swath of senior executives. The vehicle of disclosure, cyberspace, exacerbates these risks because it optimizes the accessibility and transferability of the information. Finally, the Act applies to many military, law enforcement, and diplomatic positions ... these positions may be acutely vulnerable to the misuse of such financial information. At this stage in the litigation, these interests outweigh the United States' compelling interest in combating conflicts of interest and corruption.

The STOCK Act was slated to take effect this month absent a judicial injunction. The challenge to the act was filed last month [JURIST report] on behalf of the senior federal executives and various professional organizations by the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capitol (ACLU) [advocacy website]. The complaint notes that the financial information at issue is "precisely the information that foreign intelligence services and other adversaries spend billions of dollars every years to uncover" and that the "complete personal financial information of all senior officials on the Internet would be a jackpot for enemies of the United States intent on finding security vulnerabilities they can exploit." President Barack Obama [official website] signed the STOCK Act into law in April [JURIST report], stating that the law ensures that the powerful are playing by the same rules as everyone else. The president further applauded the act as an essential step in subduing the power of money in politics. The legislation was originally introduced by Congresswoman Louise Slaughter [official website] in 2006.

Because the WLAD amendment applies prospectively only, Loeffelholz cannot recover for acts that occurred prior to the amendment. To do so would hold the University liable for conduct that was not unlawful at the time it was committed. This would violate the core tenet of retroactivity jurisprudence that "individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their conduct accordingly."

Sexual orientation discrimination remains a controversial issue. Last month an inn in Vermont settled [JURIST report] a discrimination case brought by a same-sex couple who was turned away from the holding their wedding reception at the inn because of the owner's views on same-sex marriage. Also in August the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) asked [JURIST report] the Supreme Court to review the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive], which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages. In June a lawyer for a group of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender plaintiffs in Tennessee said that she would appeal [JURIST report] the decision of a Tennessee County judge dismissing a lawsuit challenging a controversial law. The suit challenged Tennessee's Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act (EAIC) which bars local governments from creating anti-discrimination laws that are stricter than those of the state.

There are now 32 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, but the issue remains controversial. Last month a three-judge panel in the US District Court for the District of Columbia unanimously rejected a Texas law [JURIST report] requiring voters to present photo ID to election officials before casting their ballots. In May the ACLU of Minnesota filed a petition [JURIST report] sought to eliminate a proposed ballot initiative that would amend the Minnesota Constitution to require citizens to present photo identification in order to vote.

Nazif is one of the many former politicians under Mubarak's regime who are facing corruption charges. Last week former culture minister Farouq Hosni was accused of illegally obtaining 27 million Egyptian pounds (USD $4.5 million) during his term as culture minister. In August the former secretary for Mubarak's political party, Safwat El-Sherif, was referred to a criminal court [JURIST report] on corruption charges. He was accused of having abused his office by obtaining real estate at discounted prices and illegally obtaining $49.2 million. In July an Egyptian court rejected pleas to release [JURIST report] Mubarak's two sons while they await trial. Their lawyer argued that his clients are detained unlawfully because they were arrested for a misdemeanor and not for a felony which would allow authorities to detain an individual only up to six months, a term that the Mubaraks already served. Gamal and Alaa Mubarak, along with seven others, were charged with stock market fraud [JURIST report] and using unfair trading practices and illegally manipulating the market.