By accepting this settlement, we open the door to competition today and address Intel's anticompetitive conduct in a way that may not have been available in a final judgment years from now. Everyone, including Intel, gets a greater degree of certainty about the rules of the road going forward, which allows all the companies in this dynamic industry to move ahead and build better, more innovative products.

The terms of the agreement encompass Intel's activities in the CPU, graphics processor (GPU) and proprietary chipset markets. In addition to constraining Intel from using its market stature to coerce its partners' other business deals, the agreement also forces the company to restructure its intellectual property agreements with several hardware manufacturers to allow them to move more freely in the market, and to disclose to programmers that its developer-issued CPU programming software may not permit them to utilize performance-enhancing features of competitors' CPUs. Intel senior vice president and general counsel Doug Melamed emphasized that the company has admitted no wrongdoing [press release] in the settlement and said it allows Intel to "put an end to the expense and distraction of the FTC litigation."

The government originally filed suit [JURIST report] against Intel in December 2009. The settlement follows a similar suit [JURIST report] filed in November 2009 by the New York Attorney General [official website], alleging that the microprocessor manufacturer engaged in illegal conduct to further its dominance in the marketplace. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo claims that many of the company's agreements were deliberately aimed at disadvantaging AMD, Intel's primary competitor in the CPU market. Also in November of last year, Intel agreed to settle [JURIST report] all of its outstanding legal issues with AMD with a $1.25 billion payout.

Iran's human rights record continues to draw a significant criticism. In December 2009, an Amnesty International [advocacy website] report [text, PDF; JURIST report] called the actions of government forces during the civil unrest that followed the controversial 2009 presidential election some of the worst human rights abuses in the last 20 years [AI release] The Iranian government announced [JURIST report] that it had abandoned the use of stoning in August 2008 when it commuted the sentences of four people convicted of adultery and sexual offenses [BBC report]. The move came in response to intense pressure [AI release] from Western human rights groups.

In 2006, the Ontario court held that the US could seek extradition against Abdullah Khadr. The previous month, the US government formally requested his extradition [JURIST report] from Canada. He was indicted in 2006 [JURIST report] by a US federal grand jury on four counts connected to his alleged procurement of destructive devices to be used against US forces in Afghanistan in 2003 and faces a possible life sentence and a USD $1,000,000 fine. Former US Attorney Michael Sullivan said he plans to pursue the extradition "aggressively." Abdullah Khadr admitted to attending an al Qaeda training camp at age 13, but denies the allegations of membership in the group or of supplying weapons to it. Another of Abdullah Khadr's brothers, Abdul Rahman Khadr, was released from Guantanamo in 2003.

OFAC has neither issued a license nor stated that we don't need one. It suggests that it might eventually grant us a license for our work, but our application has already gone unanswered for eleven days. OFAC is well aware that the case relates to the government's decision to add a U.S. citizen to its ‘targeted killing' list. To say that the matter is urgent is a dramatic understatement. Instead of issuing press releases, OFAC should simply issue us a license.

The rights groups were retained by al-Awlaki's father in June to provide pro bono legal assistance in challenging the decision of the Obama administration to approve al-Awlaki for targeted killing in January. The groups allege that the legal assistance ban issued by the Treasury Department exceeds its statutory authority and violates the First and Fifth amendments [Cornell LII backgrounders] to the US Constitution [text]. The groups argue that it violates their First Amendment rights because it interferes with their "right to represent clients in litigation consistent with their organizational missions," and violates the Fifth Amendment because it prevents US citizens from "obtaining legal representation of their interests in US courts." The ACLU described the licensing policy [press release] as an "alarming denial of rights in any one case endangers the rights of all Americans. Attorneys shouldn't have to ask the government for permission in order to challenge the constitutionality of the government's conduct."

We're trying to make sure the President, he or she, picks a good, qualified judge, not some unfit character, not some person ... who would be a lousy judge. Now, when I apply that standard to Elena Kagan, I cannot find anything about her that makes her an unfit character to me. Quite frankly, from what I know about her from listening to her for a couple of days and having people tell me about her, is I think she's a very fine person, with stellar character.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Kagan's nomination [JURIST report] last month with a largely party-line 13-6 vote [video]. Earlier that month, the committee delayed its vote [JURIST report] at Sessions's request. In asking for the delay, Sessions cited concerns over Kagan's positions [video] on legislation during the her time working in the Clinton administration and called her answers to questions during the hearing "less than candid." Kagan's confirmation hearing concluded in June [JURIST report]. During the hearings, Kagan addressed the effect of political bias on the court and stresed the importance of not bringing politics to the bench. Kagan's confirmation hearings began [JURIST report] with Democratic and Republican senators offering contrasting interpretations of Kagan's judicial philosophy and lack of experience on the bench. President Barack Obama nominated Kagan [JURIST report] in May to replace former justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his retirement [JURIST report] in April. Kagan became the first woman confirmed as Solicitor General [JURIST report] in 2009.

Petitioner's arguments ... are likely to succeed, will have an enormous impact on the constitutional viability of the military commissions system as a whole, and have never been addressed by this Court before. [T]he Define and Punish Clause is the enumerated power authorizing Congress to enact law-of-war military commissions to try "Offenses against the Law of Nations," ... impos[ing] limits on the scope and nature of the jurisdiction of military commissions so enacted[.] ... [T]he Military Commissions Act of 2009 exceeds those limits, based on the historical background of the adoption of the Define and Punish Clause, the consistent jurisdictional practices of American military commissions since before the Revolutionary War, and this Court's precedents on military commissions' jurisdiction and status as creatures of the law of war. [B]ecause Congress was without authority ... to enact the military commission ... Petitioner has the right not to be put on trial before it.

Last month, the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] allowed Khadr to amend [JURIST report] his 2004 habeas corpus petition, but refused to lift the stay on the petition pending the conclusion of his military commission. Khadr's lawyer announced that week that he will vigorously defend Khadr at his trial scheduled to begin August 10 [JURIST reports]. Khadr fired his US civilian lawyers in July and requested that his US military lawyer be fired as well. Judge Patrick Parrish denied Khadr's request and ordered US Army Lt-Col. Jon Jackson to remain Khadr's lawyer and provide him with a defense at trial. Also in July, Khadr rejected a plea deal [JURIST report] offered by the US government, which would have resulted in a five-year prison sentence. Khadr is facing murder and terrorism charges [JURIST report] for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed one US soldier and injuring another. If he is found guilty, he could face a life sentence. Khadr's defense lawyers have repeatedly sought his repatriation [JURIST report] to Canada on the basis that the Canadian government's refusal to request repatriation from the US violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text].

A judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [official website] on Monday denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit [JURIST report] brought by the state of Virginia challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the health care law. The Virginia Health Care Freedom Act was the first of its kind passed by any state, and says that no individual shall be held liable if they refuse to sign up for health care. The court found that Virginia had standing to bring the case because the federal health care law directly contradicts the state law, which the state has an interest in defending. The court also found that the question of whether Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause [Cornell LII backgrounder] and the Tax Clause was one that "raise[d] a host of complex constitutional issues." In May, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) [association website], a small business lobby group, joined 20 states in a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the health care reform law in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website].

Last month, Countrywide reached a $108 million settlement agreement [JURIST report] with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] to resolve charges that it collected excessive fees from homeowners facing foreclosure. The agreement allows the FTC to create a fund to provide refunds to borrowers affected by the company's improper fees. Also last month, the SEC charged [JURIST report] former Countrywide officials with securities fraud arising from misleading investors. The complaint alleged that the officials knew the company was issuing risky loans and that defaults and delinquencies would rise as a result. Since the financial crisis, Countrywide has also settled lawsuits with the SEC and several state attorneys general [JURIST reports].

In April, Toyota accepted a record civil penalty of $16.375 million [JURIST report] imposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) [official website] for a four-month delay in notifying the agency about a problem with "sticky" and "slow to return pedal" gas pedals in various car models. A week earlier, the US Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) [official website] consolidated more than 150 pending lawsuits [JURIST report] against Toyota and transferred them to the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website]. In March, the NHTSA enlisted the help of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and NASA [official websites] to conduct a 15-month investigation into the sources of recent safety defects. Toyota has been under federal scrutiny since December 2009, and has conducted several recalls.