Judicial independence has a crucial role to play in upholding the rule of law, combating impunity and defending human rights and fundamental freedoms at all times. Its implementation requires the creation of an environment conducive to independent, impartial and fair decision-making that enable judges and magistrates to decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. ... It is therefore of extreme importance that the judicial system be free from political or any other pressure.

Knaul has criticized El Salvador's judicial independence record in the past. In 2011 she warned [JURIST report] that an El Salvador law requiring its high court to issue unanimous judgments was an "attack" on judicial independence and the separation of powers and harmed the judges' ability to function effectively. The law was controversial in El Salvador, with civic organizations pushing for its repeal. In 2008 hundreds of judges and lawyers in El Salvador marched to the Supreme Court of Justice [JURIST report] to protest challenges that the attorney general made to the rulings of four judges. Then-Attorney General Felix Safie had asked the Supreme Court to investigate the judges' decisions, calling those decisions arbitrary exercises of power and accusing the judges of corruption. The judges claimed that they acted according to the law and that the government sought to encroach on their independence.

In March 2011, the European Council adopted the ESM as an amendment to the TFEU. In February, the member states approved the establishment of the ESM, giving it full legal personality. Since its adoption, the ESM has come under legal scrutiny throughout the euro zone. Like in Ireland, critics of the amendment in Germany wanted the measure to be subject to a referendum. In September, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany rejected [JURIST report] a preliminary injunction to halt the implementation of the ESM's 500 billion euro fund, stating that the parliament did not unconstitutionally impair its own ability to adopt and control the nation's budget. However, the court did impose a cap on Germany's contribution to the fund. In July the court had heard arguments [JURIST report] over a claim brought in opposition to the ESM. In June the court ruled [JURIST report] that the German Bundestag has the right to be heard on the European financial crisis, holding in a case initiated by the Green party that Chancellor Angela Merkel failed to notify the parliament early enough about plans for the ESM regarding its sister party in Austria. Although that decision did not have any effect on the 500 billion euro ESM, it increased the parliament's rights by requiring the chancellor's government to provide notice to the parliament as early as possible in the future. A previous ruling that gave the parliament similar rights over matter concerning the EU was issued in February. The country's constitutional court held [JURIST report] that the use of a parliamentary subcommittee to fast-track decisions related to eurozone bailouts is unconstitutional. Rather, it required the entire Bundestag to overview such decisions.

Samsung has been involved in numerous patent infringement lawsuits, especially with Apple [corporate website]. Earlier this month, a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] ruled that Apple and Samsung may each pursue additional patent infringement claims against the other, allowing each company to add devices brought to market after the original lawsuit was filed in February. In October the Dutch Rechtbank's-Gravenhage [official website] court ruled that Samsung did not infringe [JURIST report] on an Apple software patent. In the same month, a UK court also ruled that Samsung did not infringe [JURIST report] on an Apple design patent. In the same time frame Apple appealed [JURIST report] a Tokyo District Court ruling which dismissed the company's claim that Samsung had infringed on its patents. At the beginning of October, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] reversed an injunction [JURIST report] against Samsung that prevented it from selling its Galaxy Nexus product. Earlier in August, Apple won a $1.05 billion judgment [JURIST report] in the Northern District of California against Samsung involving other patent infringements.

Journalists have told Human Rights Watch that major television stations and newspapers were informally advised by judicial authorities that they would be summoned to face contempt of court charges for criticizing or commenting unfavorably on judicial decisions or specific judges. In 2010 editors and former editors of several publications, including the English-language newspaper Dawn, faced contempt proceedings for publishing a story alleging misuse of office by the Sindh High Court chief justice, which was averted after their papers apologized publicly to the court.

Last week, A Pakistani court ordered [JURIST report] police to drop blasphemy charges against a 14-year-old girl, which had sparked international concern over the use of the country's controversial law. The girl was charged under Pakistan's blasphemy law for allegedly burning pages for a Koran. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Pakistan retracted [JURIST report] a contempt of court charge filed against Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf after approving notification of his compliance with a June directive that ordered the revival of corruption charges against President Asif Ali Zardari. Tensions between the country's judiciary and executive branch remain strong amidst the government's near year-long refusal to follow the high court's order to probe corruption allegations against the president.

Earlier this month, a Ukrainian Court rejected [JURIST report] a motion to suspend the tax evasion trial against former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko [personal website; JURIST news archive] until her health is recovered, but adjourned the trial since Tymoshenko could not attend. In September the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee [official website] unanimously passed [JURIST report] a resolution [text] calling for Ukraine to release Tymoshenko from prison. In August the Ukrainian Supreme Court [official website, in Ukrainian] upheld Tymoshenko's abuse of office conviction [JURIST report]. During the appeal the government denied allegations that the criminal proceedings against Tymoshenko were a measure initiated by Yanukovich to prevent her from participating in the October parliamentary elections. The decision came only a day after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] held a hearing [JURIST report] on Tymoshenko's appeal. Also in August Ukrainian prosecutors urged the Supreme Court not to hear her appeal [JURIST report]. Prosecutors told the court that Tymoshenko's trial had already established her guilt in the case, and asked the judges maintain her seven-year sentence [JURIST report] in the case.

The court denied certiorari in Delling v. Idaho [docket; SCOTUSblog backgrounder] over the dissent of three justices. The case would have reviewed whether the ability to raise a defense of insanity in a criminal case is mandated by the Constitution. Justice Stephen Breyer, in dissent, argued that the issue needed to be decided in consideration of Idaho's policies on the issue:

To illustrate with a very much simplified example: Idaho law would distinguish the following two cases. Case One: The defendant, due to insanity, believes that the victim is a wolf. He shoots and kills the victim. Case Two: The defendant, due to insanity, believes that a wolf, a supernatural figure, has ordered him to kill the victim. In Case One, the defendant does not know he has killed a human being, and his insanity negates a mental element necessary to commit the crime. In Case Two, the defendant has intentionally killed a victim whom he knows is a human being; he possesses the necessary mens rea. In both cases the defendant is unable, due to insanity, to appreciate the true quality of his act, and therefore unable to perceive that it is wrong. But in Idaho, the defendant in Case One could defend the charge by arguing that he lacked the mens rea, whereas the defendant in Case Two would not be able to raise a defense based on his mental illness. Much the same outcome seems likely to occur in other States that have modified the insanity defense in similar ways.

The Court also released a per curiam summary judgment [opinion, PDF] in Nitro-Lift Technologies, LLC v. Howard [docket] that the Oklahoma Supreme Court had erred by not following the Federal Arbitration Act [text]. "By declaring the noncompetition agreements in two employment contracts null and void, rather than leaving that determination to the arbitrator in the first instance, the state court ignored a basic tenet of the Act's substantive arbitration law."

The judges in the Seventh Circuit itself have recognized that the rule does not really well fit the realities of the workplace. It also just moves uncertainty from one category to another. The category of supervisor may be a little bit tidier; but, under the Seventh Circuit's approach, the category of co-worker is very unpredictable. The Seventh Circuit itself, in Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, recognized that once you move people who can take—have this kind of power over their victims but can't actually take annual employment actions against them into the category of co-workers, all of a sudden you have to apply a sliding scale of negligence. Not only that, but the jury is the one who applies it. So for those categories—this exact category of employee, Your Honor, the employer going forward has very little idea of whether—what standard of care is that a particular jury would apply in that case and whether the jury would decide it is met or not.

The court also heard arguments in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. [transcript, PDF] on state government's expressions of anti-compete statements under Federal antitrust law. In the case, the state of Georgia allowed a local government outlet, Phoebe Putney Health System [corporate website], to lease hospitals for the state, and then the hospitals bought out the competition, creating a monopoly. The court is considering whether Phoebe should be open to antitrust suits as a state actor and if it properly employed the state action doctrine [ABA backgrounder] as a defense. Essentially, the court is considering if Georgia has allowed Phoebe Putney Health System to act improperly as a state actor. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) argued that Georgia, in not being clear enough about it's anti-competition platform, was open to suit.

And a power to grant proper—excuse me—a power to acquire properties, generally speaking, unadorned with any particular expression from the state about how—how that power is to be used, is something that can be used competitively or anticompetitively, and you can't infer from that that the state really has an objective of, as I say, such as socializing its hospital services because—and—and that clarity of expression from the state is really important here, for several reasons.