Where Congress has established a clear line, the agency cannot go beyond it; and where Congress has established an ambiguous line, the agency can go no further than the ambiguity will fairly allow. But in rigorously applying the latter rule, a court need not pause to puzzle over whether the interpretive question presented is "jurisdictional." If "the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute," that is the end of the matter.

Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito joined. Roberts argued that, "[a] court should not defer to an agencyuntil the court decides, on its own, that the agency is entitled to deference."

The economic substance of the UK windfall tax is that of a US income tax. The tax is based on net income, and the fact that the Labour government chose to characterize it as a tax on the difference between two values is not dispositive under Treasury Regulation §1.901-2. Therefore, the tax is creditable under §901.

In this case, PPL Corporation was attempting to qualify for a foreign tax credit for paying a "windfall tax" in the UK, where they own a 25 percent stake in a utilities company. Its attorney, Paul Clement, argued [JURIST report] for a traditional, formalistic approach to evaluate the windfall tax, which the he argued imposed double taxation on PPL as the windfall tax was evaluated as a tax on "value" rather than a tax on profits, although it determined value solely by surveying profits. The US Solicitor General argued against this understanding.

This Court has never found a due process violation in circumstances remotely resembling Lancaster's case—i.e., where a state supreme court, squarely addressing a particular issue for the first time, rejected a consistent line of lower court decisions based on the supreme court's reasonable interpretation of the language of a controlling statute. Fairminded jurists could conclude that a state supreme court decision of that order is not "unexpectedand indefensible by reference to [existing] law." ... Lancaster therefore is not entitled to federal habeas relief on his due process claim.

At oral argument [JURIST report] in April the Michigan solicitor general (SG) argued that under Harrington v. Richter [opinion; JURIST report], "a federal court may only overturn a State court conviction that is such an erroneous misapplication of this court's clearly established precedent as to be beyond any possibility of fair-minded disagreement. That is, an extreme malfunction." In this case, the SG suggested, the state judge simple exercised fair-minded discretion to apply the statute retroactively. The attorney for Lancaster argued that his client had been treated in a fundamentally unfair manner: that his re-trial was not held quickly enough, that the Michigan Supreme Court abolished diminished capacity based on a statute that does not clearly abolish it, and that the Michigan Supreme Court retroactively applied the abolition to Lancaster. Justice Antonin Scalia questioned if Lancaster had been allowed to bring the defense in a timely fashion, if the Supreme Court wouldn't have just struck it then, and if anyone had ever mitigated their charges in Michigan based on diminished capacity.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia joined in the opinion except as to Part II-B. In Part II-B, Sotomayor asserted that, "[t]he Government;s position is also inconsistent with thegoals of the fees provision itself."

Human rights groups have criticized Russia's recent foreign agents law [JURIST report] since its adoption last November. The law requires non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-commercial organizations (NCOs) [JURIST op-ed] to register as foreign agents if they engage in any political activity or receive foreign funding. Last week the UN condemned the law's "obstructive, intimidating and stigmatizing effects" on the country's NGOs and urged [JURIST report] Russia to revise the law to comply with international standards. Critics have argued that President Vladimir Putin [official website, in Russian] is taking steps backwards toward a more restrictive government, claiming the law is curbing free speech and allows the government to severely penalize the works of NGOs.

Litvinenko's death has led to strained relations [JURIST report] between the UK and Russia, due in part to Russia's refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoy [JURIST news archive], the man suspected of administering the radioactive poison polonium-210 [CDC backgrounder], which killed Litvinenko, so that Lugovoy could stand trial for murder in the UK. The two countries have otherwise battled politically since Litvinenko's death with each expelling a number of the other country's diplomats in July 2007 and Russia closing down local offices of the British Council in December 2007 [JURIST reports]. Lugovoy was charged [JURIST report] with Litvinenko's murder in May 2007.

Rights of LGBT individuals remain a contentious issue throughout the world. Last week, Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal ruled [JURIST report] that a law prohibiting a transgender woman from marrying her boyfriend was invalid under the Chinese constitution. In March Canada's House of Commons approved a bill [JURIST report] outlawing discrimination against transgender individuals. The bill amended the Canadian Human Rights Act and hate propaganda section of the Criminal code to include "gender identity" and "gender expression" as an improper basis for discrimination and hate speech. In July Alaska Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell issued a regulation [JURIST report] that allows transgender individuals to change the sex indicator on their driver's licenses without undergoing surgery. In April 2012 the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that Title VII employment discrimination protections extend to transgender individuals. In March 2012 the US Supreme Court denied certiorari [JURIST report] in Fields v. Smith, allowing a lower court decision that transgender hormone therapy is a medically necessary procedure to stand.

[T]he law can and should be interpreted to replace the old, discriminatory mandatory minimums. Perpetuation of such racially discriminatory sentences by federal courts is unconstitutional and therefore the sentencing guidelines must be interpreted to eliminate such a result.

Friday's ruling expands upon a June 2012 US Supreme Court [official website] ruling [opinion, PDF] to expand the FSA [JURIST report] by applying the FSA to defendants who were sentenced after the act was in place, even if they were arrested before the act took effect. In Dorsey, Justice Stephen Breyer concluded: "[T]he FSA did not include any language to make it apply retroactively, but it not did explicitly deny such retroactivity either." In April 2008, a study released by the US Sentencing Commission (USSC) [official website] reported that more than 3,000 prison inmates convicted of crack cocaine offenses had their sentences reduced [JURIST report] under an amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In 2007, the USSC voted unanimously [JURIST report] to give retroactive effect to an earlier sentencing guideline amendment that reduced crack cocaine penalties.

The sale and use of marijuana [JURIST news archive] remains a controversial issue in the US and abroad. Earlier this month, the Vermont State Legislature approved a bill that replaces criminal penalties with civil fines [JURIST report] for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana and up to five grams of hashish. Also this month, the Supreme Court of California ruled [JURIST report] unanimously that local governments may outlaw medical marijuana dispensaries, upholding a ban enacted by the city of Riverside in 2010. In February the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the private sale of medical marijuana is illegal [JURIST report]. Additionally, the top court in Ontario upheld Canada's general ban on marijuana [JURIST report]. In December an Arizona judge ruled that the state's medical marijuana law is constitutional [JURIST report] and instructed the state to permit dispensaries to open. In November lawmakers in Uruguay proposed legislation for state-regulated marijuana [JURIST report]. Also that month Washington [Initiative 502, PDF] and Colorado [Amendment 64, PDF] legalized the drug [JURIST report] via state ballot initiatives. Similarly, medical marijuana was legalized in Massachusetts [Harvard Crimson report] for the first time, as over 60 percent of voters approved a similar referendum [Petition 11-11, PDF].