From the beginning of my Administration, the United States has worked to bring terrorists to justice consistent with our commitment to protect the American people and uphold our values. Today, I am announcing several steps that broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice, provide oversight for our actions, and ensure the humane treatment of detainees. I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system—including Article III Courts—to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened. Going forward, all branches of government have a responsibility to come together to forge a strong and durable approach to defend our nation and the values that define who we are as a nation.

Last April, the US Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] released a manual [text, PDF; JURIST report] for military commission procedures under the Military Commissions Act of 2009 [text, PDF]. The manual established the rules of evidence and procedure for the commissions, allowing for the admission of certain hearsay evidence and defining "material support" for terrorism. The release came a month after Defense Secretary Robert Gates [official profile] appointed [JURIST report] retired Navy Vice Adm. Bruce MacDonald [official profile] as the convening authority for military commissions. The position oversees military commissions themselves as well as the Office of Military Commissions and, notably, has the power to review and approve charges against "belligerents" pursuant to the Military Commissions Act. Last March, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism Martin Scheinin [official website] urged the administration to abandon military commissions, calling the system "fatally flawed" [JURIST report] and beyond hope of reform. Scheinin's comments followed shortly after reports emerged indicating that the administration was considering trying specific suspects in military courts [JURIST report] rather than through the civilian justice system. In May 2009, unidentified sources revealed that the administration would pursue a broad reinstitution of the commission system [JURIST report] due to concerns about the viability of trying terror suspects in federal courts and, in particular, of meeting federal evidentiary standards.

Last year, the German Federal Court of Justice [official website, in German] ruled that emoving a patient from life support is not a criminal offense [JURIST report] if the terminal individual had previously given consent. The landmark ruling legalized the right to die [JURIST news archive] in Germany and overturned the nine-month sentence of a lawyer who was convicted for advising a client to remove her mother from life support after being in a coma since 2002. In 2009, Italian President Giorgio Napolitano [BBC profile] refused to sign an Italian government decree [JURIST report] that would stop the euthanasia of a comatose woman. Eluana Englaro [materials, in Italian] had been in a vegetative state for 16 years, and her father had petitioned to remove her feeding tube. Napolitano refused to sign the decree because it would effectively overrule a 2008 decision [JURIST report] by the country's Court of Cassation [official website, in Italian] to allow for removal of the tube, thus violating the separation of power between the executive and judicial branches. In 2006, a proposed bill that would legalize the option of assisted suicide in the UK was set aside by the House of Lords following opposition from the public and two physician groups [JURIST reports]. Also in 2006, the US Supreme Court upheld Oregon's Death with Dignity Act [JURIST report], the only American state law that allows physician-assisted suicide.

The protests in Egypt have led to a variety of reactions from countries across the globe. Last month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [official website] reported [JURIST report] that Arab governments are using violence to crack down on protests inspired by the unrest in Egypt. According to the report, public gatherings in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, West Bank and Yemen have encountered force from security officials. In Ramallah, Palestine peaceful demonstrators were punched and kicked by the "special forces." Two journalists, a HRW research assistant and organizers of the demonstrations in Ramallah were detained. In Syria, police forces stood by as 20 people in civilian clothing beat demonstrators that had assembled to hold a candlelight vigil for Egyptian demonstrators. On February 4, police detained Ghassan al-Najjar, the leader of the Islamic Democratic Current, after he issued calls for Syrians to demonstrate for more freedom in their country. In Saudi Arabia, citizens canceled their plans for a peaceful sit-in to urge reform and better jobs after they were summoned by Interior Ministry officials. Sudanese authorities have also targeted journalists and censored newspapers covering protests. On February 2, more than a dozen of the staff of al-Maidan, a communist newspaper, were arrested. HRW also reported of an unconfirmed death of a student, Mohammed Abderahman, who was part of a protest in late January which was suppressed by excessive force. In Yemen, 6 people were injured and 28 arrested, including journalists and human rights activists, according to the Yemeni Observatory of Human Rights [official website; in Arabic]. In Bahrain, the government shut down a Facebook page calling for protests.

We hold that the phrase "collateral review" in § 2244(d)(2) means judicial review of a judgment in a proceeding that is not part of direct review. Because the parties agree that a motion to reduce sentence under Rhode Island law is not part of the direct review process, we hold that respondent's motion tolled the AEDPA limitation period and that his federal habeas petition was therefore timely.

The First Circuit's decision was in line with a Tenth Circuit ruling on the same issue, but the Third, Fourth and Eleventh Circuits had previously ruled that a petition for leniency does not toll the statute of limitations under AEDPA. The Supreme Court's ruling resolves the circuit split.

The 2006 Act does not deprive any Georgia voter from casting a ballot in any election. A registered voter who does not possess a photo ID and who desires to vote in person can obtain a free photo ID at one or more locations in the county of his or her residence. This Court has held that requiring an additional step in the voting process in order to validate identity is not unconstitutional. Alternatively, if a registered voter appears at the polls without a photo ID, that individual may still cast a provisional ballot and have the vote counted upon presentation of an acceptable photo ID within 48 hours. Finally, an elector who does not wish to obtain a free photo ID can vote by absentee ballot by mail.

In contrast, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] a portion of an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration in October. The court held that the law, Proposition 200 [text, PDF], was inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) [materials], which was passed with the intent of increasing voter registration and removing barriers to registration imposed by the states. The NVRA requires voters to attest to the validity of the information on their registration form, including their citizenship, but does not require them to provide additional proof of citizenship. Proposition 200 went beyond the federal statute, requiring applicants to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote.

Exemption 2, consistent with the plain meaning of theterm "personnel rules and practices," encompasses onlyrecords relating to issues of employee relations and human resources. The explosives maps and data requested heredo not qualify for withholding under that exemption. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistentwith this opinion.

Milner lives near Indian Island, a small island in the state of Washington that houses a naval magazine in which the Navy maintains non-nuclear explosives. In 2003 and 2004, Milner submitted two FOIA requests to the navy, seeking, among other things, explosive safety quantity distance (ESQD) information for the naval magazine. The Navy disclosed most of the documents that Milner requested but withheld the ESQD information on the grounds that it could threaten the naval magazine and surrounding community's safety and security.

[W]e hold that a postconviction claim for DNA testing is properly pursued in a § 1983 action. Success in the suit gains for the prisoner only access to the DNA evidence, which may prove exculpatory, inculpatory, or inconclusive. In no event will a judgment that simply orders DNA tests "necessarily impl[y] the unlawfulness of the State's custody."

Skinner was convicted and sentenced to death in 1995 for the murders of his live-in girlfriend, Twila Busby, and her two sons. He claims that, while he was in the house at the time the murders occurred, he was incapacitated by large quantities of alcohol and codeine. He has identified Busby's uncle as the possible murderer and believes that DNA evidence will exonerate him.

The trial began despite the fact that the main plaintiff dropped out of the suit. Last September, the Paris city council accepted a settlement deal [JURIST report] in which the former president agreed to pay USD $741,000 in compensation for the money paid out for false jobs. In exchange, the city agreed to drop out of a corruption suit. Chirac stated that the settlement was not an admission of guilt. A French judge placed Chirac under preliminary investigation [JURIST report] in December 2009. Chirac's trial on corruption charges marks the first time [JURIST comment] a former president will have to answer to charges against him in a court of law.

3/8/11 - The court has postponed Chirac's trial until at least June to consider the constitutional challenge.