The chief prosecutor in the case against Mubarak in his closing remarks [JURIST report] on Monday again asked the presiding judge, Ahmed Refaat, to give the death penalty [JURIST report] to Mubarak, former interior minister Habib El Adly and four of his aides accused of ordering the killing of anti-government protesters [JURIST news archive] last year. Mustapha Suleiman, the head of the five-person prosecution team, said that Mubarak was responsible for the killings because he was president at the time and failed to use his power to protect the Egyptian people. Mubarak's trial started [JURIST report] in August 2011 and has been making slow progress. The trial resumed in December in the Egyptian court after a two-month adjournment [JURIST reports] allowing the court time to rule on a motion made by lawyers representing the victims' families to have the three-judge panel in the case removed.

JURIST Guest Columnist Richard Ausness recently argued [JURIST op-ed] that the segmentation approach to navigability adopted by the Supreme Court in United States v. Utah, and ultimately applied in PPL Montana v. Montana, "strikes a better balance between the interests of riparian owners and that of the states than the "highway of commerce" approach advocated by the State of Montana."

Last week, Carlos Perez, one of four El Universo managers convicted of libel [JURIST report] against Correa, was granted asylum by Panama. The announcement that Carlos Perez had been granted asylum came shortly after Ecuador's highest court, the National Court of Justice, upheld the conviction against the four El Universo managers. The men were sentenced to three years in prison each and fined USD $40 million in total. Correa indicated that he was surprised that Panama granted the men asylum because, in his view, they were common criminals and not persecuted political activists. He also stated on Thursday that he was considering pardoning the men. The El Universo officials stated that they would bring an appeal to the IACHR to fight the verdict.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored a dissenting opinion, in which he was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, saying the Supremacy Clause challenges should have been barred because "[n]othing in the Medicaid Act allows providers or beneficiaries (or anyone else, for that matter) to sue to enforce" the reimbursement provision. The responsibility for enforcing the provision, he concluded, is vested in the CMS. The case is consolidated with Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital and Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association.

In recent weeks, the ratification process of ACTA has triggered a Europe-wide debate on ACTA, the freedom of the internet and the importance of protecting Europe's Intellectual Property for our economies. ... [L]et me be clear: ACTA will change nothing about how we use the internet and social websites today—since it does not introduce any new rules. ACTA only helps to enforce what is already law today. ACTA will not censor websites or shut them down; ACTA will not hinder freedom of the internet or freedom of speech. Let's cut through this fog of uncertainty and put ACTA in the spotlight of our highest independent judicial authority: the European Court of Justice.

Recently, there has been a surge in government attention to copyright issues. Last month, the US House of Representatives [official website] announced it will postpone hearings [JURIST report] on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) [text, PDF] in the midst of national protest. Also last month, the Spanish government approved a new law [JURIST report] that creates a government agency with the authority to force Internet service providers to block certain websites that are involved in pirating copyrighted material. The ECJ ruled in November that ISPs cannot be required by law to monitor [JURIST report] their customers' activities as an attempt to combat illegal sharing of copyrighted material. In October, the US Supreme Court considered the issue of foreign copyrights in the case of Golan v. Holder when it considered arguments to determine the copyright status of foreign works [JURIST report] that used to be in the public domain. A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a music file-sharing site could be held liable for contributory copyright infringement [JURIST report] in August.

International law and conventions stipulate that immunity cannot be granted to perpetrators of grave human rights violations such as torture. As a signatory to the Convention Against Torture and War Crimes Statute, and as a key member of the UN Security Council, the United States has an obligation to investigate the serious and credible allegations of torture and other widespread violations brought against Saleh.

Saleh has been at the center of controversy over the past year. Two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] declared that the US and Arab states are not bound [JURIST report] by a decision to grant Saleh immunity. In January, Yemeni officials amended a law [JURIST report] that would have granted full immunity to Saleh and his aides to limit his aides' immunity to politically motivated crimes. In April, Saleh agreed to step down from power [JURIST report] and give control of Yemen's government to his deputies. Last March, the Yemeni parliament, at Saleh's request, enacted emergency laws [JURIST report] designed to end anti-government protests. Earlier in March, Saleh attempted to placate protesters by promising to create a new constitution [JURIST report] guaranteeing parliamentary and judicial freedoms.

Last May, journalism rights group Reporters without Borders (RSF) [advocacy website] released [JURIST report] its annual list of predators of press freedom [materials; press release], which included the heads of state of several countries in the Middle East and North Africa. In April 2011, the US Department of State (DOS) [official website] released its 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [materials]. The reports cited many of the same leaders and organizations [JURIST report] as the RSF for violating freedom of the press. RSF's 2010 report [JURIST report] also listed many of the same offenders.

Defendants challenge the premise that alleged unequal treatment of same-sex couples, under the Civil Union Act, constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause ... Plaintiffs allege the Civil Union Act and its enforcement by certain state officials, who are named defendants, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At this juncture, the court is satisfied there is sufficient state action to permit the claim under the Federal Equal Protection Clause to proceed.

The court's ruling came four days after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie [official website] conditionally vetoed [JURIST report] a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. The Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act [bill, PDF] was passed by the New Jersey State Assembly [official website] by a vote of 42-33, and was subsequently approved by the State Senate [JURIST report] 24-16. Approval of the legislation marks a shift from the legislature's previous position concerning same-sex marriage, as a similar bill was defeated [JURIST report] in the state Senate last year. Last week the State of Washington became the eighth US jurisdiction to legalize same-sex marriage, which is also legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia [JURIST reports]. Civil unions or domestic partnerships are currently legal in Maine, Illinois, Delaware, Hawaii, California, Wisconsin, Nevada, Oregon and Washington and await ratification in Rhode Island [JURIST reports].

The UN has been involved in efforts to stabilize the West African region following the recent unrest in Libya and the Middle East. Earlier this month, the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) [official website] welcomed the new electoral law [JURIST report] adopted by the National Transitional Council (NTC) [official website, in Arabic; JURIST news archive]. The draft of the electoral law sets out procedures for the upcoming election to choose a national assembly. This finalization and adoption of the new electoral law is a significant step for Libya in establishing a democratic system after the end of the Muammar Gaddafi [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] regime and the Libyan conflict [JURIST backgrounder]. Last month, Libya was criticized for the allegations of torture and human rights violations [JURIST report]. Although the NTC expressed its commitment to human rights and legal reformation, UN Security Council was still concerned due to the lack of NTC's control over the revolutionary brigades.

Egypt has been ruled by the military since the overthrow [JURIST report] of former president Hosni Mubarak [Al Jazeera profile; JURIST news archive] last February. The new parliament is supposed to name a 100-member council to draw up a constitution, paving the way for presidential elections, but the court's ruling could mire that process and other parliament functions. Last month Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called on the newly elected parliament to pursue an agenda to reform nine areas of Egyptian law [JURIST report] that impede freedom and restrict rights. Meanwhile the prosecution in the case against Mubarak is seeking the death penalty for the former president, whose trial resumed in December in an Egyptian court after a two-month adjournment [JURIST reports] allowing the court time to rule on a motion made by lawyers representing the victims' families to have the three-judge panel in the case removed. The defense is scheduled to give closing remarks this week, after which the judge will set the date [JURIST report] to announce his verdict.

The Maldives has faced ongoing unrest since January when the military arrested the chief justice [JURIST report] of the nation's criminal court, Judge Abdulla Mohamed, after he released a detained opposition leader. Last month, the UN called for Mohamed's release [JURIST report] days after the Maldives Minister of Foreign Affairs [official website] asked the UN to help them resolve [JURIST report] what they called a judicial system failure. The same week, a group of Maldives lawyers submitted [JURIST report] the case to the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website], calling Mohamed's continued detention a violation of the International Convention on the Protection of all Persons against Enforced Disappearance [text]. In the country's first democratic elections in 2008, Nasheed defeated longtime political opponent Maumoon Abdul Gayoon [BBC profile], ending his 30-year rule. During street protests, some worried that the violence may have been a coup attempt by Gayoon, but the government has denied such claims [Reuters report].

The panel majority's ruling that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also contravenes binding Supreme Court precedent holding that the traditional definition of marriage does not violate that Amendment. In Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed, "for want of substantial federal question," an appeal presenting the same question decided by the panel: whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages.

The Ninth Circuit struck down Proposition 8 earlier this month, ruling that the voter-approved [JURIST report] constitutional amendment violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Ninth Circuit initially heard arguments on Proposition 8's constitutionality in December 2010, but then asked the California Supreme Court [JURIST reports] to rule on whether defendants had standing to appeal. The high court ruled in November that they did have standing [JURIST report].

Although Arizona's law is different from Utah's law in several respects, some aspects are sufficiently similar that the Supreme Court's ruling likely will inform this court in its decision. Because this case addresses significant constitutional issues, the court does not believe it would be helpful to the parties for the court to rule on the present motions before it receives the additional guidance from the Supreme Court. It therefore will reserve ruling until the Supreme Court has issued its decision.

Waddoups temporarily blocked the Utah law in May, less than 24 hours after it took effect, following a challenge [JURIST reports] by the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, the National Immigration Law Center [advocacy websites] and other plaintiffs. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] has also filed suit [complaint, PDF; press release] alleging that clauses in the law are preempted by the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration. The DOJ has filed similar suits challenging immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina [JURIST reports]. Federal judges have enjoined portions of each of those laws, and an appeal of the Arizona law is currently pending before the Supreme Court [JURIST report]. The DOJ is reviewing similar immigration legislation passed recently in Indiana and Georgia [JURIST reports].

that [MCA] deprives this court of jurisdiction over appellants' claims. We further hold that the Supreme Court did not declare [MCA] unconstitutional in Boumediene and the provision retains vitality to bar those claims. We therefore conclude that the decision of the District Court dismissing the claims should be affirmed, although for a lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) rather than for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia District [official website] granted the motion for dismissal in Feburary 2010 and later denied a motion for reconsideration [JURIST reports] filed after new evidence of eye witness accounts from soldiers suggested the men died while being tortured. The judge denied the reconsideration despite the new evidence saying it does not change the reasoning for dismissal that the "special needs of foreign affairs must stay" the court's action. The claim was originally brought [JURIST report] under the Alien Tort Claims Act [text], which provides that district courts have original jurisdiction to hear claims for torts "committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." The defendants moved to dismiss the suit based on § 7 of the MCA, which removes the ability of federal courts to hear challenges to the treatment of aliens who have been "properly detained" as enemy combatants. In 2008, officials from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service [official website] said notes found in the clothes of two detainees indicated that they were seeking martyrdom. Military investigations of the suicides began [JURIST report] immediately after the men were found in their cells, and the military quickly rejected calls for independent civilian investigations. The military similarly rejected requests by the governments of Yemen and Saudi Arabia [JURIST reports] to reform the investigation process.

Maryland joins a number of other states working to pass legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry. Earlier this week, Washington state legalized same-sex marriage [JURIST report] after Governor Christine Gregoire signed the legislation. New Jersey is also considering legalizing same-sex marriage soon, although it currently has a civil union system in place. Governor Chris Christie conditionally vetoed a same-sex marriage bill [JURIST report] last week and called for a voter referendum to decide the issue, rather than the state legislature. In November, a lawsuit [JURIST report] was allowed to continue in New Jersey, which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the state civil union law as a contravention of both the Fourteenth Amendment and the New Jersey State Constitution. Same-sex marriage has also been legalized in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia [JURIST reports].

On Monday the Israel Supreme Court [official website] announced that it would hear Adnan's hunger strike case [JURIST report] despite a military judge rejecting his appeal in early February. The strike began and continued as a protest of Israel's policy of detaining Palestinian prisoners without bringing formal charges or presenting evidence and without a trial. These policies have long been criticized by human rights groups, including AI, which just last week called for the end of administrative detention in Israel [press release]. Earlier this month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] similarly urged [JURIST report] Israel to amend its policies that forbid Palestinians from traveling through and living in Gaza and the West Bank.