In Thompson v. North American Stainless [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether a third party is afforded protection against retaliation when they have made claims about bias in the workplace that were not directly related to their own treatment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act [42 USC § 2000e-3(a) text] prohibits retaliation against a worker who has complained of bias in the workplace, but it is unclear whether that protection extends to a third party associated with the worker complaining of the bias. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] the district court's ruling and held that the statute only protects workers personally engaging in the protected activity, in this case complaining of workplace bias. The court has also been asked to decide if a civil remedy can be sought by third party, if the court of appeals ruling is upheld.

[U]nder the present system, any Scottish court which makes a section 4(2) order is under no obligation to hear representations from the media and, even where it does hear such representations, there is no obligation upon it to do so within a reasonable period of time and in any event prior to the proceedings to which the section 4(2) order relates. ... The Court has repeatedly stated that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that, in that context, the safeguards guaranteed to the press are particularly important. ... When proper consideration is given to what is at stake for the media when section 4(2) orders are imposed, it becomes apparent that current Scottish practice provides too slender a basis for the safeguards which are required in this context.

Protection and rights for journalists [JURIST news archive] continue to be of worldwide concern. In October, Canada broadened [JURIST report] journalists' rights to protect sources. In April, Germany announced plans to enact legislation [JURIST report] meant to increase freedom of the press. In February, the Icelandic Parliament [official website, in Icelandic] began considering measures [JURIST report] aimed at increasing protections for journalists and promoting freedom of speech and transparency in government. Last December, the US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] approved a bill [JURIST report] that would protect journalists' abilities to shield sources in federal court proceedings. Reporters Without Borders [advocacy website] ranked Finland number one in press freedom in 2010 [2010 rankings], with Iceland second, Canada twenty-first, Germany seventeenth, and the US twentieth. The UK ascended from the previous year, moving from twentieth to nineteenth.

Reviving this dormant piece of legislation, coupled with the adoption of the regulation, created a legal landscape where people were detained by police and compelled to identify themselves, answer questions and submit to warrantless searches—even if they simply wanted to walk away. Responsible protesters and civil rights groups who took the trouble to educate themselves about their rights prior to the G20 had no way of knowing they were walking into a trap—they were literally caught in the Act; the Public Works Protection Act and its pernicious regulatory offspring.

Marin launched the investigation [JURIST report] in July after his office received 22 complaints regarding security measures during the G-20 summit. It was the first time the Ombudsman used social media in conducting an investigation. In September, two individuals detained during the G-20 filed a class action suit [JURIST report] on behalf of 1,150 individuals detained during the summit. The individuals, Miranda McQuade and Mike Barber, named three defendants in the suit, the Canadian Attorney General, the Toronto Police Services Board and the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board [official websites]. The plaintiffs claim that law enforcement committed numerous intentional torts against those detained between June 25 and June 30. In early July, protesters in Toronto took to the streets and demanded an investigation [JURIST report] into police conduct during the meeting. Soon after the conclusion of the summit, in late June, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association called for an inquiry [JURIST report] into police conduct and treatment of protesters.

Frederick Chiluba was acquitted [JURIST report] last year of charges of stealing money from the country's treasury while in office from 1991-2001. He and two Zambian businessmen faced a total of 12 counts of theft of public funds for their alleged involvement in taking $488,000 when the treasury deposited payments to two US security firms into a London bank account controlled by the Zambia Security and Intelligence Services (ZSIS). The court found insufficient evidence to convict Chiluba, but the businessmen were found guilty. Chiluba was ordered to stand trial [JURIST report] on the corruption charges in February 2008. In a separate case, Chiluba was ordered by a London court in July 2007 to pay $58 million in fines [JURIST report] to Zambia to compensate for other funds stolen during Chiluba's decade in power. The suit was brought in Britain [BBC report] by Zambian officials because Chiluba and his associates held the assets in the UK and other European countries.

Aquino announced plans to create the commission [JURIST report] over the summer, prompting a call for him to issue an executive order to make the commission official and clear up any ambiguity regarding its authority. Arroyo has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. She was elected to the lower house of parliament in April after receiving permission to run for the seat [JURIST report] despite protests that her presidency gave her an unfair advantage. In March, Aquino and other presidential candidates criticized as "unjust" a Supreme Court ruling that allowed Arroyo to appoint a replacement for the retiring chief justice [JURIST report] who planned to step down a week after the May presidential elections. Arroyo declared martial law [JURIST report] in December for the first time in 23 years in the wake of a massacre in the Maguindanao province that left 57 dead. In February, prosecutors charged 197 people with murder [JURIST report] in connection with the massacre. A Manila trial court ordered the arrest of 189 more suspects [JURIST report] in March. Eleven policemen and militia members pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to the charges in April.

But "[a] court without jurisdiction is a court without power, no matter how appealing the case for exceptions may be," and hence it is these threshold obstacles to reaching the merits of plaintiff's constitutional and statutory challenges that must be the initial focus of this Court's attention. Because these questions of justiciability require dismissal of this case at the outset, the serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day or another (non-judicial) forum.

Bates heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case last month. The arguments took place on the same day Awlaqi called for jihadist attacks on US citizens in a video posted on extremist websites. Awlaqi, a suspected member of al Qaeda [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], is believed to be linked to Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooting suspect, as well as the Christmas Day airplane bombing attempt [JURIST news archive]. Earlier in November, Yemeni prosecutors charged [JURIST report] Awlaqi with incitement to kill foreigners. Awlaqi is believed to be hiding in Yemen and was charged in absentia. US officials have labeled Awlaqi as a terrorist and have placed him on a list to be captured or killed. The Yemeni government has sent forces on a counter-terrorism operation into the Province of Shabwa, where it is believed that Awlaqi is hiding. In August, the ACLU and the CCR obtained a specially designated global terrorist (SDGT) license that enables them to represent Awlaqi, but announced they were still pursuing a legal challenge [JURIST reports] to the licensing scheme. The Obama administration has defended [JURIST report] its use of targeted killings, specifically those made by unmanned predator drone strikes [JURIST news archive].