The EU and US have struggled to balance privacy concerns with anti-terrorism efforts in the past. In 2006, an EU panel said that SWIFT broke privacy laws [JURIST report] by sharing data with the US. Revelation of the once-secret program [NYT report; JURIST report], prompted sharp criticism from the Bush administration, which defended the initiative. The chairman of the US House Homeland Security Committee [official website] later encouraged the administration to press criminal charges [JURIST report] against the media for publicizing the program, which allowed the CIA [official website] to monitor international financial transactions processed by SWIFT.

The court granted certiorari in Thompson v. North American Stainless [docket; cert. petition, PDF], where it will decide if 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 [official website] 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.

The court vacated the judgments against former Alabama governor Don Siegelman (D) [official profile; JURIST news archive] and former Health South [corporate website] CEO Richard Scrushy [JURIST news archive]. Their cases were remanded to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] for proceedings consistent with the court's ruling in Skilling v. United States [opinion, PDF; JURIST report]. Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted in 2006 [JURIST report] on federal bribery and corruption charges. The convictions were appealed and Siegelman had two counts of mail fraud reversed for lack of evidence. The court of appeals later denied a request [JURIST report] by Siegelman and Scrushy for an en banc rehearing of their convictions on charges of corruption.

The court declined to grant certiorari in Pfizer Inc. V. Abdullahi [cert. petition, PDF], where the court was asked to determine if Alien Tort Statute (ATS) [28 USC § 1350 text] jurisdiction extends to include a private actor based on the alleged state action by a foreign government. The lawsuit was filed against Pfizer [corporate website] by two Nigerian families alleging that the company violated international law when it administered an experimental antibiotic to Nigerian children without the consent or knowledge of their patients. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the ATS. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] reversed the lower court ruling [JURIST report] and held that the ATS does allow for jurisdiction in the case.

Later on Tuesday, in a friendlier exchange with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Kagan discussed her opinion of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Exchange Commission [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report], which eased restrictions on political campaign spending by corporations. Kagan carefully avoided answering his questions on her personal views about the case, but asserted that the Supreme Court decided wrongly. She also noted that there is a difference between an advocate and a judge. Kagan's distinction was meant to assure Republicans that she will be an impartial justice and that her ideological view will not play a role on the bench. Hatch supported Kagan when she was confirmed to her current position as Solicitor General, but has criticized her lack of judicial experience. Hatch was less critical during his time on the floor Tuesday raising a series of questions rather than direct criticism.

Kagan's confirmation hearings began Monday [JURIST report] with Democratic and Republican senators offering contrasting interpretations of Kagan's judicial philosophy and lack of experience on the bench. In his opening statement, Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE) [official website] welcomed Kagan's lack of judicial experience, stating that her experience with all three branches of government would help to diversify the bench and bring a fresh perspective to a court that is composed of all former judges. Kagan's lack of experience was not similarly embraced by Sessions, who applauded her work as outside the courtroom, but held that there is no replacement for first-hand judicial experience. Obama nominated Kagan [JURIST report] in May to replace Justice John Paul Stevens [official profile; JURIST news archive], who announced his retirement [JURIST report] in April. Kagan became the first woman confirmed as Solicitor General [JURIST report] in 2009.

Calls for criminal and civil actions have been mounting against BP, as evidence of the oil giant's lack of proper compliance with regulations has come out. Earlier this month, US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] is reviewing whether any criminal or civil laws were violated [JURIST report] by BP resulting in the oil spill. Holder cited several statutes being examined by government lawyers including the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [materials]. The Clean Water Act includes both civil and criminal penalties, and the Oil Pollution Act can be used to hold parties liable for cleanup costs. Last month, DC-based consumer advocacy organization Food and Water Watch (FWW) [advocacy website] filed suit [JURIST report] in a US district court against the US Department of Interior (DOI) and the Minerals Management Service (MMS) [official websites] for an injunction to halt drilling at the BP Atlantis Facility [corporate website], another BP Gulf of Mexico site.

Last month, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Secretary William Hague [official profile] said that the UK will launch an investigation [JURIST report] into allegations that overseas UK operatives were complicit in torture. Hague stated that the new coalition government will initiate a judge-led inquiry into the allegations, but no details were outlined in the legislative program [text, PDF] published by Prime Minister David Cameron [official profile]. Also last month, the England and Wales Court of Appeal [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that state intelligence agencies cannot use secret evidence in their defense against abuse accusations by Binyam Mohamed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and several other UK residents who were held at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. The judgment overturned a November ruling [JURIST report] of a UK high court, which held that defendants MI5 and MI6 [official websites] could utilize a "closed material procedure" that would allow them to rely on certain evidence without disclosing it to opposing counsel or committing it to the public record. The procedure, typically employed in criminal proceedings, is designed to allow concealment of evidence where disclosure would cause "real harm to the public interest."

[I]t's clear from conversations we have had with Chinese government officials that they find the redirect unacceptable. ... Without an ICP license, we can't operate a commercial website like Google.cn—so Google would effectively go dark in China. That's a prospect dreaded by many of our Chinese users, who have been vocal about their desire to keep Google.cn alive. Over the next few days we'll end the redirect entirely, taking all our Chinese users to our new landing page—and today we re-submitted our ICP license renewal application based on this approach. This new approach is consistent with our commitment not to self censor and, we believe, with local law. We are therefore hopeful that our license will be renewed on this basis so we can continue to offer our Chinese users services via Google.cn.

In February, China issued new regulations tightening restrictions on Internet use [JURIST report] by requiring citizens operating websites to submit identity cards and meet with regulators before their sites can be registered. The new policies came amid negotiations with Google regarding the Internet company's January threat to discontinue operations in China [JURIST report] due to the country's overarching Internet censorship. Google's action was in response to a cyber attack on its Gmail service in December, which targeted the e-mail accounts of human rights activists in China and drew the ire of rights groups around the world. Google indicated that it would work with the Chinese government to find a way to allow an, "unfiltered search engine within the law as well," but also noted that if an agreement cannot be reached, it would close its offices there and shut down its Google.cn website. China responded [JURIST report] by reiterating its commitment to open Internet, but stressed that international Internet companies must follow Chinese law.

Survivors of decades of human rights violations in Timor-Leste are demanding justice and reparations, but the authorities' routine use of amnesties, pardons and similar measures has created a culture of impunity. ... The authorities in Timor-Leste are compromising on justice to seek peace—but trading away justice for such serious crimes only undermines the rule of law, and cannot resolve the trauma of the past.

In August 1999, East Timor voted for independence from Indonesia in the UN-sponsored East Timor special autonomy referendum [text]. The Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR) [official website] found [report materials] that more than 100,000 people were killed between 1974 and 1999, and severe crimes against humanity were consistent during the 25-year Indonesian occupation. Last August, East Timor President Jose Ramos-Horta [BBC profile], who won the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in attempting to resolve the Timor-Indonesian conflict, rejected a call for a criminal tribunal [JURIST report] to investigate abuses during the Timorese bid for independence, saying that such a tribunal would harm reconciliation between the two nations. AI requested a criminal tribunal [JURIST report], to be appointed by the UN, citing the lack of investigation into abuses during that period. In 2008, Indonesia accepted a truth commission report [JURIST report] that indicated it was responsible for rights abuses during the 1999 referendum for independence.

Several state legislatures have acted recently to place restrictions on women's access to abortion. Earlier this month, Florida Governor Charlie Crist [official website] vetoed a bill [JURIST report] that would have required women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound or listen to a detailed description of the fetus before the procedure would be performed. Last month, Oklahoma lawmakers approved a bill [JURIST report] requiring women seeking an abortion to complete a questionnaire containing information on marital status, reason for seeking the abortion and whether the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. In April, the Nebraska legislature approved a bill prohibiting abortions at or past 20 weeks [JURIST report] on the theory that a fetus can allegedly feel pain following that point. Advocacy groups have criticized the laws and indicated they will challenge them in court.