The vast majority of legislative resolutions are entirely appropriate and serve legitimate public purposes, such as honoring or commemorating individual achievements, notable anniversaries, Commonwealth resources, and military service and sacrifice. ... However, the court's determination that the defendants engaged in a "legislative act" for purposes of immunity should not be viewed as judicial endorsement of this resolution. It most certainly is not. ... This judicial rebuke of the resolution is not intended to impugn the religious beliefs of any citizen. To the contrary, the court's disapprobation is directed to the blatant use of legislative resources in contravention of the spirit—if not the letter—of the Establishment Clause.

The separation of church and state has been and remains a controversial issue [JURIST op-ed] in American courts. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled [JURIST report] in May that a lawsuit opposing a Ten Commandments monument displayed on property owned by the City of Fargo, North Dakota, may move forward. In January the US Supreme Court declined to review [JURIST report] a case concerning whether a county board of commissioners in North Carolina violated the Establishment Clause by opening its public meetings with prayers. The court's denial of certiorari in the case preserved a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holding [JURIST report] that that the board of commissioners violated the Establishment Clause by effectively using a public forum to endorse Christianity. Earlier that month a federal judge ordered Florida's Dixie County Courthouse to remove the Ten Commandments monument [JURIST report] displayed on the front steps of the courthouse, concluding that the monument's religious message would be interpreted to be espoused by the government. In April 2010 a federal judge in Wisconsin famously ruled [JURIST report] that Congressional legislation [text] from 1952 establishing a National Day of Prayer [advocacy website] was unconstitutional. There, in receiving a grant of summary judgment, the FFRF successfully argued that, by passing the aforementioned statute, the government had improperly endorsed religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Copyright infringement is an international concern. Last month the National Assembly of Panama [official website, in Spanish] approved a controversial new copyright law [JURIST report] that allows authorities to fine infringers without a trial or civil lawsuit. The law allows the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to impose fines of up to $100,000 on individuals who are found to be in unlawful possession of copyrighted materials. In June two of the founders of the file-sharing website The Pirate Bay (TPB) filed appeals [JURIST report] in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website], challenging their convictions for copyright violations in a Swedish court after the Swedish Supreme Court [official website] refused to hear [JURIST report] their appeal earlier this year. In November of last year the Swedish Svea Appeals Court [materials] upheld [JURIST report] the convictions of TPB founders. In April 2009 the website operators were sentenced to one year in prison for abetting copyright infringement [JURIST report]. In June 2009 several Hollywood production companies filed suit [JURIST report] in Sweden against the operators of TPB, seeking an injunction.

First and foremost, the evidence is similar in kind to the prospective "assurances of government officials" testimony which the Supreme Court found an unsatisfactory basis for a "predictive judgment." ... Second, the proposed changes are to occur about five weeks before the general election, and I question whether sufficient time now remains to attain the goal of liberal access. Third, the proposed changes are accompanied by candid admissions by government officials that any new deployment will reveal unforeseen problems which impede implementation.

Voting rights [JURIST backgrounder] remain a contentious issue in the US, particularly in the run-up to the November presidential election. 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 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the decision [JURIST reports] of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upholding the state's new voter identification law and remanded for further consideration. The Supreme Court's order, issued per curiam, suggested that it may be logistically impossible to implement the law by the November election, due to conflicts with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), the primary outpost for obtaining photo ID acceptable to the new law. They remanded the case to the Commonwealth court to "consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards."

Apple and Samsung, the top two smart phone companies, are currently engaged in patent disputes in 10 countries. Last week a judge for the US International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled [JURIST report] that Apple products do not infringe on Samsung's patents. Last month the Korean Fair Trade Commission said that South Korean regulators are investigating an Apple complaint [JURIST report] alleging that Samsung is unfairly competing in the market to the disadvantage of its competitors. In August a Japanese court dismissed a claim [JURIST report] by Apple that Samsung violated Apple's patents with its smartphones and tablets.

The prohibitions of SB 1172 unlawfully create a new category of banned speech, namely "sexual orientation change efforts" directed at minors. This includes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and questioning youth. This new category of banned speech bears no relation to the few categories of speech that have been recognized by the courts as unprotected speech. Moreover, the prohibitions of SB 1172 are invalidly rooted in content and viewpoint distinctions.

SB 1172 was approved by the California State Assembly at the end of August and by the California Senate [JURIST reports] in May. Supporters of the bill asserted that the underlying reason for the legislation is that homosexuality is not a disease and should not be treated as such. Furthermore, therapies and efforts to reverse homosexuality were found to have detrimental effects on minors' physical and mental health, leading to suicides and substance abuse. Conversely, groups such as NARTH voiced their opposition, arguing that most of the facts relied on in the bill are generalizations and loose assertions. According to some experts, California's efforts to pass the ban on sexual orientation therapy have highlighted a need for better gender identity standards [JURIST op-ed].

For many years, Egyptians viewed the police as a body to be avoided because of its record of human rights violations, rather than as an institution to resort to for protection. The Egyptian authorities today have a unique opportunity to rebuild the trust of the public in the police by ensuring significant and transparent reform is initiated. ... President Morsi should ensure that Egypt's new Constitution guarantees human rights, including, as a minimum, all those recognized and protected by international human rights treaties to which Egypt is a party. It must also ensure that the security forces most associated with abuse are revamped into accountable institutions serving everyone in Egypt without discrimination.

There have been several controversial trials since the end of the revolution. At the end of September Egyptian Defence Minister General Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi ordered a reduced sentence [JURIST report] for a group of military officers who took part in opposition protests in April 2011. There were 22 officers, known as the April 8 Officers, arrested for their participation in protests [Egyptian Independent report] in support of the revolution and against SCAF and against retired Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi Soliman. Earlier in September an Egyptian court upheld the death sentences for 14 Islamists, and a court sentenced [JURIST reports] former prime minister Ahmed Nazif to three years for corruption. 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. 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.

The court asked the Solicitor General for a brief in Arzoumanian v. Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft AG [docket; case materials], a case that concerns Armenian-Americans' ability to file claims for life insurance policies their deceased Armenian family members bought before the Armenian genocide [backgrounder], committed during World War 1. The policies were never paid out by the German insurance company. The Turkish government does not recognize the genocide and has consistently filed amicus briefs in the case to dispute those allegations.

The court gave summary dispositions in two redistricting cases, allowing both redistricting maps to stand in Radogno v. Illinois Board of Elections and Backus v. South Carolina [Justia backgrounders].

The court denied certiorari in three high profile cases. In Corbett v. United States [docket; Reason backgrounder] the court declined to consider whether body scans conducted by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) [official website] violate the Fourth Amendment [text]. The court also denied certiorari in Wyoming v. Dept. of Agriculture and Colorado Mining Association v. Dept. of Agriculture [JURIST report], allowing the "roadless rule" [JURIST news archive] to stand, which prevents road-building and commercial timber harvesting on expanses of roadless areas around the country, primarily the National Forests. The court also let stand a US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision [opinion] that will compel the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) [advocacy website] to release its donor list, under a Maine campaign disclosure law. NOM is one of the most prolific advocates against same-sex marriage.

Finally, in Sibley v. Supreme Court of the United States [docket], the court granted an automatic affirmation of a DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Supreme Court has judicial immunity in the lawsuit. The court lacked a quorum in the case, as every justice except Justice Elena Kagan was implicated in the original suit, which stems back to 2006. Attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley [WP profile] sued the Supreme Court and three US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit judges for treason and violating his right to a fair tribunal, because they did not recuse themselves on a previous suit where he had declared all of them defendants.

[I]f, in fact, the US corporation committed a violation of the universal jurisdiction norm, for example, as we believe these norms are in this case, there are many jurisdictions in which US corporations could be—could be sued. ... [I]t is possible that the plaintiffs could have sued in other places. They sued here because this is where they live. This is their adopted homeland because of that. The United States, under international law, clearly has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims between parties properly before them.

The court also heard arguments in Lozman v. Riviera Beach [transcript; JURIST report] on whether a permanently and indefinitely docked structure is a vessel for the purposes of 1 USC § 3 [text], thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction [DOJ backgrounder]. In this case, petitioner Faze Lozman's docked houseboat came under scrutiny [Palm Beach Post report] when Riviera Beach wanted to redevelop the marina in which he had it stationed. To do this, they used maritime law to put a lien against his property, alleging that he had to register the houseboat as a "vessel." Lozman, for whom the US government also argued, stated that the houseboat is not a vessel, as it is not practically suited for any maritime transportation. The attorney for Riviera Beach argued that the houseboat is a vessel because it "floats, moves, and carries people or things on water." The justices appeared to hinge the distinction on whether any floating object is a vessel for the purposes of the statute, querying if this would also apply to objects including an inner tube, an inflatable raft, a floating casino, an aircraft carrier and a log.

Cambodia's government has a turbulent history. Last month the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website] released the former "First Lady" of the Khmer Rouge [JURIST news archive] regime, Ieng Thirith. The court ruled that she should be released due her degenerative illness, said to likely be Alzheimer's. Thirith, the sister-in-law of former leader Pol Pot [BBC backgrounder], has always denied any wrongdoing. The ECCC has only convicted one former Khmer Rouge leader, Kaing Guek Eav [JURIST news archive]. Earlier in September the ECCC announced that it would declassify more than 1,700 war crimes documents [JURIST report] in efforts toward more convictions. Ieng Thirith was indicted [JURIST report] in September 2010 along with Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea. The ECCC ruled in November that Ieng Thirith was unfit to stand trial, but the Supreme Court Chamber ordered that she remain in detention [JURIST reports] and that the Trial Chamber exhaust all measures so that she can stand trial.