By granting the prize to Mr. Liu, the Nobel Committee has chosen someone who has been an eloquent and courageous spokesman for the advance of universal values through peaceful and non-violent means, including his support for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. ... We call on the Chinese government to release Mr. Liu as soon as possible.

In February, a Chinese appeals court upheld [JURIST report] Liu's 11-year prison sentence despite calls for his release from US and EU officials. Liu was tried [JURIST report] in December on subversion charges in a trial that lasted only two hours and was closed to foreign diplomats. Liu was formally arrested in June and charged [JURIST reports] in December, but he has been in detention since December 2008, shortly before the petition's release. In June 2009, rights groups marked the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 uprising in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, calling for the government to investigate the incident [JURIST report] and implement changes called for by Charter 08.

Last week, US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar [official profile] announced new drilling guidelines [JURIST report] designed to increase safety and reduce the likelihood of another catastrophic oil spill. Last month, a federal judge denied [JURIST report] the government's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by several drilling companies challenging the latest offshore drilling moratorium. The ruling held that there were "no substantial changes" between the July 12 directive and its predecessor, issued on May 28, that the new moratorium did nothing to amend or prevent the wrongs found in the first and that the wrongful behavior alleged in the original order could reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the more recent iteration. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana [official website] rejected a request to reinstate [JURIST report] the May 28 ban in July, weeks after the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] similarly declined [JURIST report]. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] originally asked the appeals court to stay the preliminary injunction [JURIST report] in June, on the basis that another deepwater spill could overwhelm the ongoing efforts to clean up the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill with catastrophic results. Lawyers for the DOJ also claimed that the district judge abused his discretion in issuing the injunction.

[W]e hold that plaintiffs bringing a section 2 VRA challenge to a felon disenfranchisement law based on the operation of a state's criminal justice system must at least show that the criminal justice system is infected by intentional discrimination or that the felon disenfranchisement law was enacted with such intent. Our ruling is limited to this narrow issue, and we express no view as to any of the other issues raised by the parties and amici. We also leave for another day the question of whether a plaintiff who has made the required showing would necessarily establish that a felon disenfranchisement law violates section 2.

Washington is in the majority of states in terms of voting rights for convicted felons, as only two states, Maine and Vermont, permit those individuals to vote [San Francisco Chronicle report] without any conditions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website], a significant force in the area, released a report in 2008 showing widespread disenfranchisement [JURIST report] among ex-convicts, including a lack of knowledge of state laws regarding voting rights. Earlier that year, the ACLU filed suit [JURIST report] challenging additions to Alabama's felon voting disenfranchisement law made by the state's attorney general. In February 2008, the ACLU filed suit [JURIST report] alleging that a Tennessee law requiring ex-convicts to pay all outstanding legal obligations before being granted the right to vote violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

In June, an independent UN human rights expert called for the release [JURIST report] of Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Myanmar, claiming their continued detention "contravenes international human rights law and casts a long shadow over planned elections in the country." Suu Kyi originally challenged the election law [JURIST report] dissolving the NLD in April, but her suit was rejected. In March, the NLD announced that it would not take part in the nation's first elections in 20 years after the Myanmar Supreme Court rejected [JURIST reports] a lawsuit brought by the NLD to repeal the election laws preventing Suu Kyi from participating. In February, the Myanmar Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by Suu Kyi challenging an 18-month extension to her house arrest imposed last August after Suu Kyi was found to have violated the terms of her house arrest [JURIST reports] after an American swam across a lake to her home.

Lubanga is accused of war crimes for allegedly recruiting child soldiers to fight in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 2002-2003. His trial began in January 2009 but was halted soon after when one of the child witnesses recanted his testimony [JURIST report] that Lubanga had recruited him for the militia. The prosecution concluded its case [JURIST report] last July after presenting 22 weeks of testimony. Lubanga maintains he is innocent [JURIST report] of the charges against him. He became the first war crimes defendant to appear before the ICC, formed in 2002, after he was taken into custody [JURIST report] in March 2006.

The ICTR, formed pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 955 [materials], is charged with investigating and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes of genocide that occurred in Rwanda in 1994. That mission has continued 16 years after the tribunal's formation, and the results have been a mix of successes and challenges [JURIST op-ed]. Last month, the ICTR opened the trial of a former Kivumu mayor [JURIST report], charged in connection with deaths at a church in that town in April 1994. The tribunal has faced adversity since its creation, including the shooting death [JURIST report] of one of the senior defense lawyers in July.

The legislation comes as part of a wider campaign by Morales to advance the interests of the majority indigenous community, which has been a theme of his presidency [JURIST report]. In June, the Bolivian National Congress approved [JURIST report] legislation [text, PDF; in Spanish] that will create an independent justice system for indigenous communities. The Law of Judicial Authority, is attempting to create a system of "communal justice" that would expedite the settlement of disputes and end the colonization of justice, according to supporters. Opponents in congress criticized the bill as a way in which to get more people from the indigenous population on the courts, regardless of merit. In March 2009, Morales began redistributing land to indigenous farmers under power given to him by the country's new constitution [text, in Spanish]. Bolivia's new constitution went into effect [JURIST report] in February 2009, after being approved [JURIST report] by national referendum the previous month with a 59 percent majority. It is intended to place more power in the hands of the country's indigenous. The constitution is intended to remove traditional colonial elites from power and to challenge US influence. It also creates seats in Congress for minority indigenous groups.

There is a rational basis to conclude that, in the aggregate, decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision.

The Obama administration is also facing various other health care lawsuits. In June, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) [association website], a small business lobby group, joined a lawsuit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform law. The NFIB joined 20 states in a legal battle that began in March when a complaint seeking injunction and declaratory relief was filed in a Florida federal court. In May, the Obama administration filed a brief [text, PDF] urging the dismissal [JURIST report] of a lawsuit brought by the state of Virginia challenging the constitutionality of the law, but, in August, a federal judge announced he would allow the case to proceed [JURIST report].

Last month, the European Commission [official website] warned France that the country would face disciplinary proceedings [JURIST report] and potential legal action if it did not follow EU regulations in its relations with Roma migrants. Also in September, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] urged EU members to stop forcibly deporting Roma migrants to Kosovo [JURIST report]. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) [official website] expressed concern [JURIST report] in August with France's recent expulsion policy for Roma migrants, a day after the EU Parliamentary Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats [official website] labeled the policy a violation of EU law [JURIST report]. France defended its handling of the Roma [Telegraph report], saying only few cases result in forced deportation and that France was helping those displaced reintegrate into their countries of origin. In July, French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French] ordered measures against illegal Roma communities in France and announced legislation [JURIST report] that would make deportation easier. At the time, the French government aimed to dismantle half of illegal Roma camps within three months and to immediately deport all those found to have broken the law.

Last month, the Bombay High Court allowed an appeal by Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab [NDTV profile], the lone gunman to survive the three-day siege. Kasab, who was tried alongside two alleged accomplices of Indian descent that were acquitted on all charges, announced in June that he would appeal his May conviction and death sentence [JURIST reports]. In May, Pakistan's Supreme Court [official website] declined to incarcerate [JURIST report] Saeed, citing insufficient evidence to link him to the Mumbai attacks or al Qaeda [JURIST news archive]. It was feared that the ruling could strain the already fragile relationship between India and Pakistan, which had recently begun peace talks. Pakistan had previously placed Saeed under virtual house arrest [JURIST report] in September 2009, though the Lahore High Court (LHC) [official website] ordered his release [JURIST report] weeks later, also for a lack of evidence.