Religious headscarves have been banned in schools in several European countries. In 2009, a similar ban was instituted in all Dutch-speaking Belgium schools [JURIST report] in the northern region of Flanders. In 2008, the Dutch government announced plans to ban burqas [JURIST report] in schools. In that same year, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] unanimously ruled [JURIST report] that there was no human rights violation when a French school expelled two students in 1999 for refusing to remove their headscarves. In 2004, France banned religious clothing and symbols in public schools [JURIST report]. A German court has upheld a similar ban [JURIST report].

In spite of the lack of arrests made under the 1999 lawsuit, Guatemala has actively sought to punish those involved in crimes against humanity, corruption and disappearances. In October, two former National Police were sentenced to 40 years [JURIST report] in prison for the disappearance of student and union leader Fernando Garcia after he was shot and hospitalized in 1984. In August, the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) [official website, in Spanish] announced that it had issued arrest warrants for former government officials including those for former interior minister Carlos Vielmann, former police director Erwin Sperissen and former prison director Alejandro Giammettei in relation to the extrajudicial killing of several inmates [JURIST report]. In 2009, a retired Guatemalan colonel was sentenced [JURIST report] to 53 years in prison for his role in the disappearance of eight indigenous Guatemalans during the civil war.

Too many people ... have expressed doubts about our time-honored and time-tested system of justice. That's not only misguided, it's wrong. The fact is, federal courts have proven to be an unparalleled instrument for bringing terrorists to justice. Our courts have convicted hundreds of terrorists since September 11, and our prisons safely and securely hold hundreds today, many of them serving long sentences. There is no other tool that has demonstrated the ability to both incapacitate terrorists and collect intelligence from them over such a diverse range of circumstances as our traditional justice system. Our national security demands that we continue to prosecute terrorists in federal court, and we will do so. Our heritage, our values, and our legacy to future generations also demand that we have full faith and confidence in a court system that has distinguished this nation throughout its history.

The Obama administration changed its position despite repeated appeals from rights groups to utilize civilian courts over military commissions for the trials of suspected terrorists. Last March, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism Martin Scheinin [official website] called on the Obama administration to hold civilian trials [JURIST report] for Mohammed and other suspected terrorists saying that the military commissions system is fatally flawed and cannot be reformed. Earlier that month, the ACLU released a full-page advertisement in the New York Times urging President Barack Obama [JURIST report] to uphold his pledge to try 9/11 suspects in civilian criminal court. That release came just days after White House advisers announced they were considering recommending [JURIST report] that Mohammed be tried in a military court rather than through the civilian criminal justice system. In an interview last July, Holder stated that the main goal of the administration is to hold the people responsible [JURIST report] for 9/11 accountable in the most effective way possible. Holder reiterated his support for holding the trials in civilian courts [JURIST report], saying that the criminal justice system has been proven an effective location for terrorism trials and that excluding civilian courts as a possible tool in fighting terrorism would ultimately weaken the nation's security. Holder announced in November 2009 that Mohammed would be tried in a civilian court [JURIST report] in Manhattan, drawing intense criticism and leading the Obama administration to reconsider the decision.

In an era of frequent litigation, class actions, sweeping injunctions with prospective effect, and continuing jurisdiction to enforce judicial remedies, courts must be more careful to insist on the formal rules of standing, not less so. Making the Article III standing inquiry all the more necessary are the significant implications of constitutional litigation, which can result in rules of wide applicability that are beyond Congress' power to change. The present suit serves as an illustration of these principles.

Before the tax credit law went into effect, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in Kotterman v. Killian [opinion, PDF] that, based on the construction of the statute, it did not on its face violate the Establishment Clause or provisions of the Arizona state constitution. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled In Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation [opinion text] that taxpayers do not have standing [JURIST report] to challenge executive branch actions under the Establishment Clause. The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFR) filed a lawsuit over the use of government funds to promote then-president Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

We now hold that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Section 2254(d)(1) refers, in the past tense, to a state-court adjudication that resulted in a decision that was "contrary to", or "involved" an unreasonable application of, established law. This backward looking language requires an examination of the state court decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is limited to the record in existence at that same time—i.e., the record before the state court. This understanding of the text is compelled by "the broader context of the statute as a whole," which demonstrates Congress' intent to channel prisoners claims first to the state courts.

Pinholster was convicted of the 1982 killing of two men during a burglary in Los Angeles. During the guilt phase of his trial, Pinholster rejected assistance from attorneys and insisted on representing himself. However, after being informed that the prosecution planned to offer aggravating evidence during the penalty phase to support a sentence of death, Pinholster accepted the trial court's appointment of two attorneys to his case. Pinholster's attorneys moved to exclude aggravating evidence on the ground that the prosecution had failed to provide notice of the evidence to be introduced, but it was later discovered that Pinholster, while representing himself, had in fact received notice and had denied the motion to exclude. The same jury that had convicted Pinholster in the earlier guilt phase of the trial sat for the penalty phase and voted unanimously for death. The California Supreme Court affirmed and subsequently denied two habeas petitions.

In Greene v. Fisher [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the Supreme Court is being asked to determine what the temporal cutoff is for one of its decisions to become "clearly established Federal Law" under 28 USC § 2254(d) [text], as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Petitioner Eric Greene was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for involvement in a robbery of a convenience store in which the store's owner was shot and killed. At the trial, Greene had objected to the admission of confessions of his conspirators and co-defendants on Confrontation Clause [Sixth Amendment text] grounds. The court allowed the confessions with Greene's name redacted. He renewed this objection on appeal, arguing on the grounds of the Supreme Court's decision in Gray v. Maryland. Gray was decided before Greene's conviction became final but after the state court's last decision on the merits. Greene argues that whether the Gray case should apply will be outcome determinative of his appeal. The Third Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that an opinion issued after a decision on the merits in state court is not "clearly established Federal Law," acknowledging that its decision created a circuit split.

The court also denied certiorari in three Guantanamo detainee cases, allowing the decisions of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] to stand. The court did not act in a case involving the Uighurs [JURIST news archives], a group of Chinese Muslims captured in Afghanistan. The Uighurs claim they were wrongfully captured and have attempted to challenge their indefinite detention. Some are still being held at Guantanamo since being captured in 2001. Of the 22 Uighurs originally detained at Guantanamo Bay, 17 have been relocated.

Congress's findings and the legislative record leave no doubt that the minimum coverage provision—which regulates the way people pay for services in the interstate health care market—is a valid exercise of the commerce power under the standards established by the Supreme Court. It regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature, and that substantially affects interstate commerce. First, Congress found that people who consume health care without insurance shift billions of dollars of costs annually to other participants in the interstate health care market. Second, Congress found that the minimum coverage provision is key to the viability of the Act's regulation of medical underwriting, which guarantees that everyone will be insurable regardless of illnesses or accidents.

The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for initial hearing en banc [JURIST report] in the appeal. The order confirmed that the appeal will nonetheless be expedited. Oral arguments are currently scheduled for June 8 before a randomly-selected three-judge panel. The identities of the panel members will not be disclosed until at least 14 days before the arguments. Last month, the Obama administration filed a brief with the court contesting the plaintiff states' request [JURIST report] to have the appeal heard by an en banc court. Last month, Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a petition for a writ of certiorari [JURIST report] with the US Supreme Court asking the court to rule on the constitutionality of the law on an expedited basis, before the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rules on the issue, but the Obama administration opposes the petition [JURIST report]. In January, a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging a provision of the health care reform law. In October, a federal judge in Michigan ruled that the law is constitutional [JURIST report] under the Commerce Clause as it addresses the economic effects of health care decisions, and that it does not represent an unconstitutional direct tax.

Vu is among several dissidents in Vietnam who have been convicted for anti-government activity. In January, a Vietnamese court sentenced former communist official Vi Duc Hoi to eight years in prison [JURIST report] for advocating democracy and a multi-party system. In January 2010, a Vietnamese court sentenced [JURIST report] writer and democracy activist Pham Thanh Nghien to four years in prison on charges of spreading anti-state propaganda. That same month, a Vietnamese court convicted four democracy activists [JURIST report] of subversion. Following the one-day trial, human rights lawyer Le Cong Dinh [JURIST news archive] was sentenced to five years in prison. The four defendants were accused of activities aimed at ending communist rule in Vietnam. Dinh admitted to advocating multi-party democracy in Vietnam and joining the banned Democracy Party. Prior to Dinh's conviction, a Vietnamese court sentenced [JURIST report] pro-democracy dissident Tran Anh Kim in December 2009 to five-and-a-half years in prison for subversion.