Every day that DOMA stands, it arbitrarily divides married couples into two categories. And the extra burdens that DOMA has imposed on Massachusetts families since 2004 are now being endured by families in Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire.

In October, the US Department of Justice filed two notices of appeal [JURIST report] in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts [official website], defending DOMA. In July, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the DOMA definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional [JURIST report] because it interferes with the states' right to define 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 and Massachusetts [JURIST reports] in legalizing same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive], extending the full benefits available at the state level to same-sex spouses. DOMA was passed in 1996.

The complaint in the case was originally filed after a 2007 police inquiry [Reuters report] listed French properties, bank accounts and other assets held by the three African leaders and their relatives. A French magistrate heard the case in 2009 and ruled that the suit could move forward [Le Parisien report, in French], but French state prosecutors appealed the decision to the Paris Court of Appeals, which refused to hear the case. The case is sensitive for France, with Gabon as a former colony. France has struggled with how to reconcile its colonial history [JURIST news archive].

The UN has urged other nations to provide assistance to Kenya in conducting pirate trials and has aided by opening a high-security courtroom and donating USD $9.3 million [JURIST reports] to fund piracy trials. The UN has also considered creating an international tribunal [JURIST report] to take pressure off of Kenya. Earlier this month, Kenya acquitted 17 accused pirates [JURIST report] who were arrested in the Gulf of Aden by the US and South Korean navies. Kenya also convicted two groups of seven pirates in September, on separate occasions [JURIST reports]. Somali pirates have also been tried in the Netherlands, the US, Yemen, Seychelles and Mauritius [JURIST reports], although the bulk of trials still occur in Kenya.

I firmly believe that, while Judges must be absolutely free and appear to be free from any preconceived beliefs, it is also necessary for them to be sheltered from mere innuendoes as to their professional past or their current attitude. If they were not so safeguarded, they would be unable to discharge their difficult mission with equanimity. Charges of bias unsupported by compelling evidence can only sow confusion and uncertainty in the mind of all those who watch the unfolding of international justices, as well as trouble the conscience of Judges, thereby affecting their serenity. The Tribunal will firmly reject any attempt at guesswork or speculation intended to project onto the Tribunal political motivations that instead are, and shall always remain, extraneous to it, as is fitting and appropriate for any proper court of law.

The STL is the UN-backed tribunal charged with investigating the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri [JURIST news archive]. The STL is expected to issue indictments [UPI report], possibly in December, and may name members of Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah [CFR backgrounder] in connection with the assassination. Last month, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah [BBC profile], called for all Lebanese to boycott the STL [JURIST report]. In August, Hezbollah officials submitted evidence to the STL linking Israel to Hariri's death in response to a request by the tribunal [JURIST reports] to turn over all information relating to the assassination.

The State law at issue here is not preemptive, for three reasons. First, it is consistent with the equal footing principle or nondiscrimination principle that this Court has consistently recognized is embodied in section 2. Second, it's consistent with two key purposes that the savings clause fulfills under the FAA: ensuring that arbitration is a matter of consent and not coercion; and that it represents merely a choice of forum, but not an exemption from the law. And third, the State law at issue is a correct and legitimate application of the State's common law to which this Court should defer.

because the California Supreme Court rejected Mr. Pinholster's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on its merits, Federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable under 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d)(1) unless Mr. Pinholster first met his burden of demonstrating that the State court rejection of his claim was unreasonable. He did not do that in this case, and thus the lower courts erred in granting him habeas corpus relief.

At the opening of the fifteenth session of the UNHRC in September, High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] emphasized the need for protection of human rights both during emergencies and on a regular basis. However, she chided countries [JURIST report], including the US, France, China and Russia, for ongoing human rights violations. In August, the US State Department (DOS) [official website] released its human rights review [JURIST report] and presented the report to the UNHRC. In the report, the DOS acknowledged the US government's historical struggle with some human rights issues including gender and racial equality, but noted the progress made in both areas. The Obama administration received criticism from both human rights groups and US politicians for initially not taking part [press release] in the UPR sessions, a process which each of the 192 UN member states must undergo every four years [JURIST comment]. The US was elected to the UNHRC [JURIST report] in May 2009. The UNHRC was created [JURIST report] in 2006, at which time the Bush administration declined to seek a Council seat or participate in its proceedings due to a perceived anti-Israeli sentiment.

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act 2010 was passed in June. It repeals the Independent National Electoral Commission Act 2006 in order to re-instate the Nigerian Independent National Election Commission (INEC) [official website]. The INEC regulates the conduct of federal, state and local council elections and similar matters. Also in June, the legislature passed [JURIST report] revisions to the Constitution that would clarify the exercise of executive authority in absence of the president. The constitutional revisions would also change federal election law. It would remove a provision of the constitution that disallowed people who had been charged with fraud from standing for election and would require candidates for federal office to have a degree beyond secondary education. The 2011 presidential election will be the first since the death of former president Umaru Yar'Adua [BBC obituary] in May. Former vice president Jonathan assumed the presidency in February after parliament voted [JURIST report] for him to step in for the ailing Yar'Adua.

If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state. It's the government's responsibility to protect the nation from terrorist attacks, but the courts have a crucial role to play in ensuring that counterterrorism policies are consistent with the Constitution.

Last week, Yemeni prosecutors charged [JURIST report] Awlaki with incitement to kill foreigners. Awlaki is believed to be hiding in Yemen and was charged in absentia. US officials have labeled Awlaki as a terrorist and have placed him on a list to be captured or killed. The Yemeni government has sent forces on a counter-terrorism operation into the Province of Shabwa, where it is believed that Awlaki is hiding. In August, the ACLU and the CCR obtained a specially designated global terrorist (SDGT) license that enables them to represent Awlaki, but announced they were still pursuing a legal challenge [JURIST reports] to the licensing scheme. The Obama administration has defended [JURIST report] its use of targeted killings, specifically those made by unmanned predator drone strikes [JURIST news archive]. State Department Legal Adviser [official website] Harold Koh [academic profile] has said the drones "comply with all applicable law" because they target only military targets and enable minimal damage to civilians and civilian structures. Last October, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston [official website] noted that the use of unmanned drones by the US to carry out attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan may be illegal [JURIST report].

In September, Chirac agreed to pay the city of Paris [JURIST report] USD $741,000 in compensation for money he allegedly paid to supporters for whom he created false jobs in exchange for the city agreeing to drop out of a corruption suit [France 24 report] against him. Chirac was ordered to stand trial [JURIST report] on related charges of embezzlement and misuse of public funds last October. The charges were originally filed in 2007 [JURIST report] after Chirac's presidency ended and he no longer had judicial immunity.

SQ 755 would prevent Oklahoma courts from "look[ing] to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures," requiring them only to look to legal precedents of other states for guidance, provided that state does not use Islamic law. It was sponsored by state Representative Rex Duncan (R) [official website], who described it as a preemptive strike [Daily Mail report] against the use of Islamic law in Oklahoma. Duncan defended SQ 755 as necessary to protect Oklahoma [MSNBC report, video] from an attack on the fundamental Judeo-Christian principles on which he says the US is founded. Still, the necessity of the amendment has been questioned [CNN report] due to the fact that the use of Islamic law in US courts would likely violate the First Amendment prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion.