In July the US District Court for the District of Nebraska [official website] dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] filed by seven state attorneys general challenging the PPACA's health care mandates, particularly those that require all employer health care plans, including those of religious institutions, to cover contraception. In June the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that declared the PPACA constitutional centered on the "individual mandate" provision [text] of the act, which requires every person, with some exceptions for religious and other reasons, to purchase some form of health insurance by January 1, 2014, or be subject to a fee equal to either a percent of that individual's income or flat rate of $695. In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that individual mandate is not a requirement that Americans buy insurance, since individuals who choose to pay the flat-rate fee are in full compliance with the law. The Court's decision resolved four consolidated cases accepted by the court [JURIST report] in November 2011.

Serbia is one of several countries allegedly restraining freedom of expression in light of a restrictive approach to gay pride parades. In August a city court in Moscow refused to overturn [JURIST report] the municipal government's ban on gay pride marches for the next century. Specifically, the court affirmed the Moscow municipal government ruling that any public gatherings classified as gay pride marches are prohibited from March 2012 until May 2112. In June Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] sent a letter [JURIST report] to Bulgarian Justice Minister Diana Kovacheva urging her to denounce calls to violence by anti-gay groups in anticipation of a gay pride parade in Sofia, Bulgaria, on June 30. In May 2010 a court in Lithuania ruled [JURIST report] that the nation's first gay pride parade could proceed as scheduled, overturning a lower court's decision to ban it.

BiH has been continuously prosecuting, convicting and sentencing those responsible for the killing during the massacre, and even those who left the country are being brought back to face charges. In June the country's war crimes court sentenced [JURIST report] four former Bosnian Serb soldiers [case materials, in Croatian] for their involvement in the 1995 massacre. In May US resident Dejan Radojkovic was deported [JURIST report] to BiH to stand trial before the country's court for his actions as a police commander in Srebrenica during the 1995 massacre. He was arrested in 2009 after it was revealed that he did not disclose his involvement in the conflict and his appeal was rejected in February. He was the second to be deported after his commanding officer, Nedjo Ikonic, was deported in 2010 [JURIST report]. A day earlier, the war crimes court convicted [JURIST report] Dusko Jevic and Mendeljev Djuric for taking part in the killing of 1,000 Muslim men during the massacre after it found that the two former Bosnian Serb police officers were guilty of aiding and abetting genocide. They had been indicted on genocide charges in January 2010 after being arrested [JURIST reports] in October 2009. In January the court also upheld the conviction [JURIST reports] and 31-year sentence of Radomir Vukovic for his part in the 1995 massacre.

Former president Arroyo has been a target of anti-corruption efforts by President Benigno Aquino [BBC profile]. Arroyo was arrested [JURIST report] in November on fraud and corruption charges in the hospital before she was able to leave the country to seek medical treatment. In April Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to corruption charges before a special anti-graft court in the Philippines. The non-guilty plea came a month after a Philippines court issued an arrest warrant [JURIST report] against Jose on bribery charges. He was accused of accepting bribes to support the $329-million national broadband network deal with ZTE Corporation. Arroyo faced the same charges in December when the country's authorities filed a second criminal complaint [JURIST report] against her alleging that she approved a $329-million national broadband network deal with the Chinese company in return for millions of dollars in kickbacks in 2008.

Iraq's criminal justice system has been the subject of controversy recently. Last month an Iraqi court sentenced former vice president Tariq al-Hashemi [JURIST news archive] to death after convicting him of three counts of murder [JURIST report]. In August a UN human rights expert condemned [JURIST report] Iraq for the executions of 26 people and urged the government of Iraq to halt all executions and ensure that all criminal defendants have fair trials.

[T]he Court concludes that Montana's contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated Section 13-37-216 are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. ... The contribution limits prevent candidates from amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy. ... The defendants are therefore permanently enjoined from enforcing these limits.

In June the US Supreme Court [official website] struck down [JURIST report] Montana's century-old campaign finance law known as the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act [PPL backgrounder] as invalid under the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [JURIST report]. The Supreme Court's decision overturned a ruling [JURIST report] by the Montana Supreme Court [official website] that upheld the Corrupt Practices Act.

The court also heard arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] to determine whether recurring flooding of property caused by federal governmental actions constitutes a "taking" under the Takings Clause [Cornell LII backgrounder] of the Fifth Amendment [text], requiring the federal government to pay due compensation to owners of damaged property, if it is only temporary. The Arkansas Game & Fish Commission brought this action against the federal government, alleging that the US Army Corps of Engineers [official websites] caused increased flooding on one of its properties, which in turn damaged timber. The commission claims the damaging of timber on its property constituted a taking for which it deserved compensation, and the US Court of Federal Claims [official website] agreed and awarded damages of more than $5.6 million. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, overturned [opinion] that ruling, saying that the flooding did not constitute a taking because it was only temporary and did not permanently take over the land. The commission argued to the Supreme Court that it should not matter whether the water remains on the land permanently, but that the government should compensate landowners whenever it releases water that causes a "physical invasion" of private property.