The case was brought by a bottler and distributor of Pepsi-Cola products in Washington state challenging the NLRB after the Board affirmed a decision that the distributor violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) [text]. In addition, two business advocacy groups filed motions contesting the constitutionality of the president's recess appointments [JURIST reports] in January 2012. The motions were filed in relation to the groups' ongoing suit challenging the NLRB mandate that rights to unionize [JURIST report] be posted in all workplaces. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] defended the use of recess appointments [CRS backgrounder, PDF] by Obama immediately after his announcement. The DOJ's memo argues that although the Senate met between January 3 and 23, the sessions were not sufficient to constitute an interruption of a recess under the Recess Appointment Clause because they were only pro forma sessions that lasted less than a minute and there was no intent to conduct any business. Some experts argue that recess appointments have regularly been used by presidents [JURIST op-ed] since George Washington. It is only a relatively recent practice that obstructionists have begun holding perfunctory pro forma sessions every three days while the Senate is on recess in order to block recess appointments.

The distinction made by the law is rationally connected to the state objective: the Quebec approach only imposes state-mandated obligations on spouses who have made a conscious and active choice to accept those obligations. The law falls within a range of reasonable alternatives for maximizing choice and autonomy in the matter of family assets and support. While schemes adopted in other Canadian provinces impair the equality right of de facto spouses to a lesser degree, such approaches would be less effective in promoting Quebec's goals of maximizing choice and autonomy for couples in Quebec ... Without this distinction, the clear choice between a regime of division of property and support on the one hand, and a regime of full autonomy on the other hand, would be absent. The Quebec approach only imposes state-mandated obligations on spouses who have made a conscious and active choice to accept those obligations. The requirement of an active choice to undertake obligations is consistent with the objective of enhancing autonomy

The appeal stems from a Court of Appeals decision that held Quebec's Civil Code provisions were unconstitutional [Toronto Star report] because they had discriminatory effect on common law couples. The appeals court thereby reversed the decision of Quebec Superior Court that held that the mother had failed to demonstrate the discriminatory effect caused by the Civil Code provisions. Canada and other countries around the world are currently reviewing the controversy of marriage equality—particularly same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive]. Last January Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson [official profile] indicated that the Canadian government considers all same-sex marriages performed in Canada to be legal [JURIST report] and that the Civil Marriage Act [text] will be altered to reflect the government's position. The announcement came amid a growing controversy over a previous declaration [JURIST report] that non-resident same-sex marriages performed in Canada are not legal unless recognized by the participants' home countries. As it is with common law couples, Canada's provinces have interpreted rights of same-sex couples in different ways. In October 2011 a judge for the Queen's Court Bench of Alberta [official website] granted custody [JURIST report] of a child to a non-biological father who was an ex-partner of the biological father. In January of that year, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that refusal by provincial marriage commissioners to marry same-sex couples is unconstitutional and thereby invalidated a proposed amendment to Saskatchewan's Marriage Act of 1995 that would have allowed the commissioners to refuse to marry same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs.

The case of United States v. Windsor concerns Edith Windsor [ACLU backgrounder], a widow who had a legal same-sex marriage under Canadian and New York law but was denied spousal deduction for federal estate taxes when her wife died. Prior to her challenge, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it would no longer defend DOMA in courts, and in response, the US House of Representatives formed [JURIST reports] the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to defend the law. In July 132 members of the US House of Representatives [official website] filed an amicus brief [JURIST report] arguing that statutory classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny and that DOMA should be overturned as unconstitutional under any level of judicial scrutiny. The brief was filed in the appeal of Karen Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, the landmark case in which the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional [JURIST report]. In June 10 US senators filed their own amicus brief in the case, arguing in the opposite [JURIST report] that the federal government had a legitimate interest in creating a uniform federal definition of marriage to "[avoid] massive legal uncertainty."

Same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] and correlated rights remain a controversial issue around the world. In November, the Polish Supreme Court declared for the first time [JURIST report] that same-sex partners living together could retain the same legal standing as heterosexual couples in regard to taking over a lease if their romantic partner with whom they were cohabiting should die. In August Germany's Justice Ministry introduced legislation [JURIST report] that would grant several additional marriage rights to couples in same-sex civil unions. Also in August the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled [JURIST report] that homosexual couples in a civil union should receive the same tax benefits as heterosexual married couples. In June Denmark's Parliament voted to approve a bill [JURIST report] that legalized same-sex marriages in the country's state Lutheran church ceremonies when before couples were required to conduct ceremonies at the end of services.

This report and its far-reaching recommendations are not only a tribute to the brave young woman who was raped and murdered five weeks ago, but to all victims of sexual violence and assault in India. It is also a testament to the power of the young women and men of India, and the broader civil society, who have joined hands across the nation to say "Enough is Enough." ... The Committee's recommendations are grounded in a framework of rights, equality and non-discrimination, and represent a paradigm shift towards recognition of women as holders of rights, not just objects of protection. The report should serve as a beacon for many other countries struggling to respect the rights of women more comprehensively by addressing sexual violence through legislation, policies and programmes.

The student's death sparked mass protests in India and led to the creation of the committee that issued its findings [JURIST report] earlier this week. In December Indian authorities charged six suspects [JURIST report] with murder after the death of the gang rape victim. In December Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [official profile] called for peace [JURIST report] after a protest over sexual violence resulted in a clash between protesters and police.

This decision follows a more recent trend in Germany of judicial deference to consumer protection and public need. A pair of 2008 decisions by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court [official website] prevented a series of laws from going into effect that would have allowed intelligence agents and government officials to search personal computers, networks and Internet communications as well as telephone data [JURIST reports] for national security purposes. The same court reaffirmed its defense of individual liberties in 2010 when it overturned a law [JURIST report] requiring telecommunications providers to store information on telephone calls, e-mails and Internet use for six months in the event of possible terrorism investigations, citing privacy issues as the main cause for concern.

Ashraf's brief term as Prime Minister has been fraught with conflict and tension between the executive and the judiciary. Ashraf's predecessor, Yousuf Raza Gilani, was forced out as prime minister last June after the Supreme Court convicted him of contempt [JURIST report] for failing to pursue a corruption case against the president. In July, only a month after Ashraf became prime minister, the Supreme Court ordered him to reopen the investigation [JURIST report] against President Asif Ali Zardari [official website] within three weeks. The National Assembly of Pakistan [official website] approved a bill [JURIST report] to shield senior officials from contempt of court proceedings, which was widely seen as an attempt to exempt Ashraf from possible claims of contempt for failing to follow the order. When Ashraf did not do as the court requested, the Supreme Court granted him [JURIST report] another two weeks to comply with its order. When in early August Ashraf still did not reopen the investigation, the court ordered [JURIST report] him to appear and explain his refusal to comply with the July orders. After his appearance in court, the Supreme Court then granted Ashraf an additional three weeks [JURIST report] to reopen the corruption case. Finally, in mid-September, Ashraf agreed to allow the corruption case to be reopened [JURIST report].

In September the Supreme Court of Russia [official website, in Russian] upheld [JURIST report] the Arkhangelsk region's ban on "gay propaganda" but ruled that gay pride parades and other demonstrations in support of gay rights are legal. 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 (USD $100-160) [Moscow Times report], while organizations could be fined up to 50,000 rubles for "promoting" homosexuality.

Same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] has been a controversial issue around the world. On Tuesday the US Supreme Court [official website] received briefs [JURIST report] in two separate cases defending the constitutionality of laws that define marriage as strictly between one man and one woman. Last month JURIST guest columnist Paul Johnson opined that the effect of an ongoing human rights debate in the British Isles and the European Court of Human Rights may have a detrimental effect on the same-sex marriage debate [JURIST op-ed] in the UK. In the same time frame, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, a non-profit corporation in Nevada which opposes same-sex marriage, petitioned the US Supreme Court [JURIST report] to grant certiorari to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires Nevada to change its definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman to the union of two persons. In November the office of the Maryland Attorney General released an opinion [JURIST report] stating that same-sex couples can obtain marriage licenses, allowing Maryland to become the ninth US state to allow same sex marriage after Maine and Washington [JURIST reports] enacted similar measures in November.

Last month the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website] convicted [JURIST report] former Rwandan minister Augustin Ngirabatware [case materials], sentencing him to 35 years in prison and concluding the tribunal's final trial. Ngirabatware was found guilty on charges of genocide, incitement to commit genocide and rape as a crime against humanity. Also in December, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution [JURIST report] to extend the term of office of five judges of the ICTR. Since its founding in 1994 following the Rwandan genocide, the ICTR has indicted 91 individuals and, thus far, finished 50 trials with 29 convictions.

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in nine states, as well as the District of Columbia. Earlier this week the US Supreme Court received briefs [JURIST report] in two separate cases defending the constitutionality of laws that define marriage as strictly between one man and one woman. The first case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, examines the validity of Proposition 8 [JURIST news archive], a California referendum that revoked same-sex marriage rights. In the second case, United States v. Windsor, the court will examine the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive]. The court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in the two cases last month. Both cases could have an important impact on the ongoing same-sex marriage controversy in the US.

In July the UNCC announced a disbursement of $1.3 billion [JURIST report] to six claimants, including corporations, public enterprises, governments, and international organizations. In June 2005, the UNCC processed its final claim, bringing the total award payments to $53.5 billion. One month prior, Iraq's deputy UN Ambassador Feisal al- Istrabadi claimed [JURIST report] corruption and gross mismanagement of the UN Oil-for-Food program. Former US Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker [JURIST news archive] led an investigation by the Independent Inquiry Committee [official website] into questionable expenditures by the UNCC to determine whether Iraq should be compensated for overcharges by UN agencies.

Somalia's new government is saying the right things about the rule of law and a free press, but locking up journalists and others who report rape sends the opposite message. The authorities should release the four detainees, and ensure that the police investigate sexual violence effectively.

After decades of violence and rights abuses under the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) [CFR backgrounder], Somalia is taking key steps to move towards peace. Last August the UN welcomed the signing of Somalia's National Security and Stabilization Plan [JURIST report]. Also in August the Somalia constituent assembly approved a draft of the new constitution [JURIST report] with over 96 percent of the 645 ballots cast in the special 825-member assembly after eight days of debate. The new constitution also has to be ratified by a national referendum. Last June then-president Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed [BBC profile] and the TFG signed a decree [JURIST report] establishing the legal framework by adopting a new constitution convened by the National Constituent Assembly (NCA). During the same month UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] told officials at the Istanbul II Conference on Somalia [materials] that Somalia must take all efforts to smoothly transition [JURIST report] into a permanent government with a new constitution.