The Legislature gave me this authority because of its lack of confidence in the Attorney General's willingness to vigorously defend this legislation that is so critical to protecting the safety and welfare of Arizona's citizens. ... Due to Attorney General Goddard's curious coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice today and his consistent opposition to Arizona's new immigration laws, I will direct my legal team to defend me and the State of Arizona rather than the Attorney General in the lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration laws.

Several lawsuits have been filed in response to the bill, which was signed into law [JURIST reports] at the end of April, including a suit by an Arizona police officer alleging that the law will hamper police investigations. The American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website] also filed suit [JURIST report], challenging the constitutionality of the law and seeking an injunction, though some find the law is constitutional on its face [JURIST op-ed]. Proponents of the law argue that it will discourage illegal immigration, while opponents contend it will lead to discriminatory police practices based on race. The Obama administration, though supporting immigration reform, has sharply criticized the law [JURIST report], calling it "misguided" and expressing concern that it could be applied in a discriminatory fashion. These criticisms are shared by Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, Spanish] who called the law a "violation of human rights" [JURIST report]. Earlier this month, a group of UN experts found that the law could violate international standards [JURIST report] that are binding on the US.

[JURIST] A US immigration judge on Thursday ordered Times Square bombing suspect Aftab Ali Khan deported to his native Pakistan. Khan was arrested along with two other men earlier this month on immigration charges under the suspicion that they transferred money to Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad, but Khan told authorities that he had never heard of Shahzad [AFP report]. Authorities believe that Khan might not have known what the money was for, but Shahzad's phone number was found in Khan's cell phone and written on an envelope in his apartment. Khan's lawyer Saher Macarius [firm website] attempted to convince the court to let Khan leave the country voluntarily, rather than through a deportation order, but Judge Robin Feder rejected the request. Khan has 30 days to appeal the order before being deported. Shahzad, a Pakastani-born US citizen, was taken into custody on May 3 [JURIST report] after an SUV containing explosives was found parked in Times Square on May 1. He was charged [complaint, PDF] with five counts, including attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, attempting to kill and maim people in the US, using and carrying a destructive device, transporting an explosive device, and attempting to damage buildings, vehicles and other property. He is scheduled for a hearing in a New York federal court on June 1.

Shahzad's arrest stirred up controversy [Capitolist report] over whether terrorism suspects should be read Miranda rights. Earlier this month, a group of US lawmakers introduced a bill [JURIST report] that would strip US citizenship rights from those suspected of engaging in acts of terrorism. The bill, known as the Terrorist Expatriation Act (TEA) [text, PDF], would give the State Department [official website] the power to revoke citizenship of a US national who provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization or engages in/supports hostilities against the US or its allies. The American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website] came out against the bill [press release] finding it to be "unconstitutional and ineffective." Recent terrorism arrests have also created controversy over the proper venue in which to try those suspected of terrorism. In April, US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] stated that the government has not ruled out [JURIST report] prosecuting certain high-profile terror suspects, such as alleged 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammad [JURIST news archive], in civilian court in New York City.

While African nations have been slow to protect gay rights, several other regions have recently passed legislation expanding the rights of homosexuals. Earlier this month, the Argentine Chamber of Deputies [official website, in Spanish] voted 126-109 in favor of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage [JURIST report] in the country. The bill would also give gay couples the right to adopt children, one of the bill's more controversial provisions. Portugal quickly followed suit two weeks later when President Anibal Cavaco Silva [official website, in Portuguese] signed a bill [JURIST report] that legalizes same-sex marriage but stops short of allowing same-sex couples to adopt. In April, the Philippines expanded political rights for the gay community when the Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that a prominent gay rights organization may field candidates in the upcoming national elections as an accredited political party. This progress is not reflected in recent legislation of many African nations. The secretary-general's next stop is Uganda, where the government is currently considering legislation [JURIST report] that would prohibit the sale of property to homosexuals and charge individuals who fail to report homosexual activity.

The process for engaging a country on resettlement issues can be lengthy and complicated. The State Department has engaged in discussion with dozens of countries across the globe to initiate or further resettlement negotiations once it has been determined that a government is open to discussions. When this process is successful, initial receptiveness leads to discussions regarding individual detainees, foreign government interagency review, foreign government interviews of prospective resettlement candidates, the foreign government's formal decision-making process, integration plans, and, ultimately, resettlement. The length of the effort often has been influenced by political and other issues in potential resettlement countries, third-country views with respect to detainee resettlement, and public views of the Guantanamo detention facility generally. Depending on how these factors affect individual cases, the process can be very lengthy.

The Obama administration continues its push to close the Guantanamo Bay facility, despite missing its self-imposed one-year deadline [JURIST report] in January. The administration has run into several hurdles in closing the prison, including opposition from members of Congress and the suspension of detainee transfers to Yemen [JURIST report]. Last week, the US House Armed Services Committee [official website] approved a bill [JURIST report] prohibiting the Obama administration from modifying or building a facility in the US to hold detainees currently held at Guantanamo. The bill requires [summary, PDF] that any plan to construct or modify US facilities to accommodate Guantanamo transfers be "accompanied by a thorough and comprehensive plan that outlines the merits, costs, and risks associated with utilizing such a facility." As the Obama administration has not presented such a plan to Congress, the bill prohibits the use of any funds for the purpose of preparing a US facility for Guantanamo transfers. The number of detainees at Guantanamo has significantly been reduced as the administration continues to transfer detainees to a growing list of countries, including Italy, Bulgaria, Spain, Maldives, Georgia, Albania, Latvia, Switzerland, Slovakia, Algeria, Somaliland, Palau, Belgium, Afghanistan, and Bermuda [JURIST reports].