In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act [text, PDF] is protected conduct under the anti-retaliation provision [29 USC § 215(a)(3) text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that an oral complaint is not protected and later denied [opinions, PDF] a motion for a rehearing by the full court. Counsel for the petitioner argued:

When Kevin Kasten told his employer that the location of the time clocks was illegal and that if they were taken to the court they would lose, he filed any complaint within the meaning of the 215(a)(3) under the Fair Labor Standards Act, because filing includes an oral communication, because "any" means any, which includes formal or informal, written or unwritten communications.

In addition to the Makitan case, Sweden is also considering litigation in several other war crimes cases. In June, Sweden announced [JURIST report] its intention to investigate the possible role of Lundin Petroleum [corporate website] in crimes against humanity committed in Sudan from 1997 to 2003. The investigation will examine allegations made in a report [text, PDF] released by the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (ECOS) [advocacy website], which alleged that Sudanese troops attacked and displaced civilians so that Lundin could have access to land for oil drilling. In April, Swedish Police [official website] arrested [press release, in Swedish] a Kosovo war crimes suspect. The suspect is accused [JURIST report] of committing war crimes during the 1998-1999 Kosovo war [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] in the small village of Cuska in May 1999. A Swedish police spokesperson did not release the man's full name because of Swedish privacy laws but did state that the suspect is a Serbian man in his 30s [AFP/SW report].

Ntaganda should be arrested and made to answer for his crimes, rather than being allowed to walk freely in Goma. He is a threat to the people of eastern Congo and is making a mockery of the Congolese government's policy of zero tolerance for human rights abuses. ... [The Congolese government] claims that Ntaganda is necessary for the peace process, but Ntaganda's brutal targeting of opponents and blatant disregard for Congolese law and basic human rights is no way to achieve peace.

The warrant for Ntaganda's arrest was originally issued in 2006 but was not made public by the ICC [JURIST report] until 2008. The arrest warrant was issued under seal because "public knowledge of the proceedings in this case might result in Bosco Ntaganda hiding, fleeing, and/or obstructing or endangering the investigations or the proceedings of the Court," but ICC judges determined that those circumstances have since changed.

The start of Ghailani's trial was postponed last week when Judge Lewis Kaplan barred key US government witness [JURIST report] Hussein Abebe from testifying because his testimony was the product of statements made by Ghailani to the Central Intelligence Agency under duress. Ghailani's defense filed a motion to dismiss over the summer, saying he would not get a fair trial, but the court denied the motion [text, PDF; JURIST report] because "the government is entitled to attempt to hold Ghailani accountable in a court of law for his alleged complicity in the murder of 224 people and the injury of more than 1,000 others." US President Barack Obama [official profile] said last year in a speech on national security [JURIST report] that preventing Ghailani from coming to the US would prevent justice from being served. The announcement [JURIST report] that Ghailani would be tried in federal court came in May 2009 following the ordered review of all Guantanamo detainees pursuant to plans to close the detention facility [JURIST news archive].

Erlinder returned to the US in June after spending 21 days in a Rwandan prison following his arrest [JURIST reports] on charges that he denied the 1994 Rwandan genocide [HRW backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Upon his return, Erlinder stated his belief that had he not requested to contact the US embassy shortly before his detention, he would not have survived [Star Tribune report]. He also said that he was on a reported hit list made up of the names of opponents to Rwandan President Paul Kagame [official website; BBC profile]. The High Court of Rwanda [GlobaLex backgrounder] a week earlier had released Erlinder on bail due to persisting medical problems from what Rwandan officials say was a suicide attempt [JURIST reports]. The court also required him to inform the court of his whereabouts and comply with future court orders.

The DOJ moved to dismiss [JURIST report] the Massachusetts lawsuit in November, stating that it is the policy of the government to support federal statutes as long as there is a reasonable argument in favor of their constitutionality. Massachusetts, the first state to recognize gay marriage, initiated the suit [JURIST report] against the federal government last July. The DOJ also sought to dismiss [JURIST report] the GLAD case on the basis that Congress has the authority to pass legislation defining marriage. The Obama administration has extended some federal benefits [JURIST report] to same-sex couples, including allowing domestic partners to be added to insurance programs, to use medical facilities, and to be included in family size and house allocation considerations. In June, Obama ordered executive agencies to expand [JURIST report] federal childcare subsidies and services and travel and relocation payments to the same-sex partners of federal employees and their children. The Obama administration has said DOMA is discriminatory but has maintained that it is nonetheless constitutional. In March, the District of Columbia joined Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts [JURIST reports], and the Coquille Indian Tribe [OregonLive report] in legalizing same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive], extending the full benefits available at the state level to same-sex spouses.

Last month, the European Commission (EC) [official website] warned France [JURIST report] that the country would face disciplinary proceedings and potential legal action if it did not follow EU regulations in its relations with Roma migrants. The warning stated that France needed to abide by the 2004 Directive on Free Movement [Directive 2004/38/EC materials] and incorporate it into its laws. Also in September, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Viviane Reding [official profile] threatened legal action [JURIST report] against France for its deportation of Roma, calling the intuitive "a disgrace." More than 100,000 people in 130 cities across France protested [JURIST report] the security policies of President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French], including his decision to deport [JURIST reports] the illegal Roma. In August, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination [official website] unveiled a review [JURIST report] of France's compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) [text], which raised questions about the controversial immigration legislation and the decision to dismantle 300 unauthorized Roma encampments.

[The p]laintiff established at trial that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act irreparably injures servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights and violating (a) the substantive due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (b) the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the Government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.... Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights.

In a press release [text] Tuesday, LCR said it "urges caution by servicemembers considering coming out at this time, as the Obama administration still has the option to appeal," but said that the organization is "extremely pleased" with the injunction.

Since its enactment in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of DADT. Last month, a federal judge for the US District for the Western District of Washington [official website] ordered [JURIST report] that a US Air Force officer be reinstated after being previous discharged under DADT. Also in September, the Senate [official website] rejected a cloture motion [JURIST report] on a defense appropriations bill that would have repealed the policy. In May, the House of Representatives [official website] and the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to repeal the policy after President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed to a compromise [JURIST reports] that would prevent the repeal from taking effect until the completion of a review to determine what effects the repeal would have on military effectiveness, soldier retention and family readiness. Also in May, A CNN poll [results, PDF] released found that 78 percent of American adults believe that homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military. In March, Gates announced changes to the enforcement [JURIST report] of the policy to make it more difficult to expel openly gay service members from the military.

We have more work to do in our reform agenda, but at this point we believe the strengthened safety measures we have implemented, along with improved spill response and blowout containment capabilities, have reduced risks to a point where operators who play by the rules and clear the higher bar can be allowed to resume. The oil and gas industry will be operating under tighter rules, stronger oversight, and in a regulatory environment that will remain dynamic as we continue to build on the reforms we have already implemented.

Last month, a federal judge denied [JURIST report] the government's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by several drilling companies challenging the offshore drilling moratorium. The judge 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 the May 28 ban in July, weeks after the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit similarly declined [JURIST reports]. 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.