Last month, the Ninth Circuit denied Arizona's request for expedited appeal [JURIST reports]. The preliminary injunction [JURIST report] came at the request of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website], which filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the law [JURIST report] last month. Bolton issued the injunction against provisions of the law requiring the verification of the immigration status of people reasonably suspected of being illegal immigrants, authorizing the warrantless arrest of those police have probable cause to believe have committed an offense that could lead to deportation and requiring noncitizens to carry their registration papers with them at all times. The law has been widely criticized as unconstitutional for allegedly legalizing racial profiling. The American Bar Association (ABA) [official website] filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of the DOJ lawsuit, following the submission of another amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website].

In June, Mousavi called for the prosecution [JURIST report] of those who committed fraud during the 2009 election and vowed to continue opposing Ahmadinejad. Earlier that month, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [official website; BBC profile] pardoned or commuted the sentences of 81 protesters [JURIST report] arrested following the disputed election. A Tehran Revolutionary Court [official website, in Persian] in April sentenced [JURIST report] three prominent progressive activists to six years in prison in connection with the protests. The men were high-ranking officials of the Islamic Iran Participation Front [party website, in Persian], a pro-democracy reformist political party that supported opposition leader Mousavi in the disputed election. Iranian authorities jailed prominent Iranian journalist Mohammad Nourizad and reform movement leader Hossein Marashi [JURIST reports] on similar charges in April and March, respectively.

The Committee expressed concern over the difficult situation members of the Roma community were facing with regard to their economic, social and cultural rights. As the State party had accepted the principle of linguistic and cultural diversity, the Committee was concerned over the partial implementation of that principle on the French territory.

On Thursday, the EU Parliamentary Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats accused France of violating EU law [JURIST report] with its expulsion policy. Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French] ordered measures against illegal Roma communities in France and announced legislation [JURIST report] that would make deportation easier. At the time, the French government aimed to dismantle half of illegal Roma camps within three months and to immediately deport all those found to have broken the law. In February, following the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl by East European immigrants, Italian authorities began dismantling illegal immigrant camps [JURIST report] around Rome that were heavily populated by members of the Roma minority.

Human rights have long been a major concern in the DRC. In June, national police chief John Numbi was suspended [JURIST report] as part of the ongoing investigation into the murder of human rights activist Floribert Chebeya. In December, HRW urged the UN Organization Mission in DR Congo (MUNOC) [official website] to stop funding military groups [JURIST report] in the country that are committing human rights abuses. In December 2008, AI reported that rape and sexual warfare have been employed [JURIST report] by both the DRC military and by rebel forces. In November 2008, MUNOC head Alan Doss [appointment release] condemned [JURIST report] the killing of civilians by militias in the country as war crimes. MONUC has been operating in DRC since 1999. The conflict in the DRC has claimed more than four million lives and has been ongoing since 1983. MONUC has overseen elections and continues to provide armed protection for civilians in certain areas, particularly the North and South Kivus provinces.

The panel's opinion may theoretically leave open the possibility that the FCC could return to something like its pre-1987 policy, which focused on Carlin's seven dirty words. During the time when that policy prevailed, however, "not a single enforcement action was brought." It is easy to understand why, in light of the freedom that policy gave to broadcasters to air indecent material so long as they "avoided certain words."

The US Supreme Court originally remanded the case to the appeals court after ruling [opinion text; JURIST report] in April 2009 that the FCC did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in changing its policy regarding fines for the broadcast of isolated expletives. That ruling overturned a previous decision [JURIST report] by the Second Circuit, which held that the 2004 policy was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act [text] for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy. The Supreme Court declined to address the constitutionality of the FCC policy in its decision and remanded the case to the lower court for further consideration of the constitutional issue.

The new constitution was approved [JURIST report] by popular referendum earlier this month. Voting on the constitution took place amid concerns that high turnout and heated debate over the referendum could cause a repeat of the violence seen during the country's presidential election [JURIST report] in 2007. The creation of a new constitution was part of a power-sharing agreement [JURIST report] reached in 2009 between Kibaki and opposition leader Prime Minister Raila Odinga [official website] that brought to an end the civil unrest that followed the contested election. Election officials sought to make the referendum as inclusive and peaceful as possible by allowing prisoners to vote and prosecuting those who suggested violence in reaction to the changes [JURIST reports] under hate speech laws.

Following last month's challenges to the ordinance, passed via referendum in June, the Fremont City Council voted unanimously and without debate to suspend the legislation [JURIST reports] until a resolution was reached. The council also approved the hiring of Kris Kobach [academic profile], a law professor and Kansas political candidate, to defend the city against the lawsuits. Kobach assisted in the drafting of the ordinance and the Arizona immigration law [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive] and offered his assistance to Fremont pro bono. The ACLU challenged the law based on the Equal Protection and Supremacy [Cornell LII backgrounder] clauses of the US Constitution [text]. MALDEF's lawsuit [complaint, PDF] makes nearly identical arguments, adding that the ordinance interferes with a person's right to enter into and enforce contracts under federal law [42 USC § 1981 text] and violates Article 11 of the Nebraska Constitution [text] because the Fremont municipal government has not been empowered by the Nebraska Legislature [official website] to enforce immigration law. Additionally, MALDEF cites five cases of similar local laws that were struck down by federal and state courts, including a nearly identical law struck down [JURIST report] by a federal district court in Texas. A previous version of the ordinance was narrowly voted down [BBC report] by the city council in 2008.

Vlahovic's arrest comes as former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic [case materials; JURIST news archive], stands trial before the ICTY for alleged war crimes during the Bosnian War. Karadzic faces 11 charges [amended indictment, PDF], including genocide and murder, for crimes allegedly committed during the 1992-1995 Bosnian conflict. In June, the ICTY said that Karadzic's trial was expected to conclude in early 2012 [JURIST report] and is planned to be the tribunal's last.