The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] in August 2009 that the district court erred in their finding that the Vermont statute was constitutionally permissible. The court of appeals held that the statute was an impermissible restriction on corporate speech that does not withstand immediate scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored to advance a substantial state interest.

The Supreme Court has considered Abu-Jamal's case in several previous rulings. The court remanded the case to the Third Circuit [JURIST report] in January 2010 for further consideration in light of the ruling in Smith v. Spisak [opinion, PDF; JURIST report]. In 2008, the Third Circuit affirmed [JURIST report] a district court ruling overturning the sentence in Abu-Jamal's case, and the only issue to be determined on remand was whether the court erred in allowing the new sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court declined to review [JURIST report] Abu-Jamal's conviction in April 2009. Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing police officer Daniel Faulkner [advocacy website] after Faulkner pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother for a traffic violation. The case has become a focal point for death penalty opponents, attracting the attention of artists, civil rights activists and politicians.

The two actions both allege that the United States holds the same assets in trust for the Nation's benefit. They describe almost identical breaches of fiduciary duty. ... Indeed, it appears that the Nation could have filed two identical complaints, save the caption and prayer for relief, without changing either suit in any significant respect.

Under §1500, the substantial overlap in operative facts between the Nation's District Court and CFC suits precludes jurisdiction in the CFC. The Court of Appeals erred when it concluded otherwise.

The tribe filed suit in federal district court alleging that the US government had breached its fiduciary duty by mismanaging funds held in trust for the tribe. The suit sought an accounting and other equitable relief. The tribe then filed suit in the CFC seeking monetary relief. The CFC dismissed the suit, finding that it lacked jurisdiction.

that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace.

The Sri Lankan Ministry of External Affairs [official website] announced in December that a UN war crimes panel would be allowed to visit [JURIST report] the island to look into alleged war crimes in the final stages of the 26-year civil war. The decision represented a reversal after months of strong opposition [JURIST report] from the Sri Lankan government under President Mahinda Rajapaksa [official profile], who described the UN panel as an infringement of Sri Lanka's sovereignty. Instead, Rajapaksa appointed the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to investigate the final years of the conflict from the ceasefire in 2002 to its conclusion in 2009. The LLRC's credibility, however, has been contested by several human rights organizations, which say the commission lacks objectivity [PTI report]. The change in position also followed economic sanctions, including the withdrawal of trade concessions worth $150 million per year with the EU. The government has repeatedly denied accusations that its forces violated international law during the conflict.

Chief Judge Walker thus had a duty to disclose not only the facts concerning his relationship, but also his marriage intentions. ... Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case. ... Because he did not do so when the case was assigned to him, and has not done so since, it must be presumed that he has an interest in marrying his partner and therefore was in fact the "judge in his own case."

Last month, the Ninth Circuit denied a motion [JURIST report] filed by California Attorney General Kamala Harris [official website] to lift the stay order [JURIST report] prohibiting gay couples from marrying while an appeal of the invalidation of Proposition 8 is pending. A week earlier, supporters of the marriage ban urged the Supreme Court of California [official website] to allow them to defend the measure [JURIST report] when state officials refuse to do so. When Walker struck down Proposition 8 last year, then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former attorney general and current Governor Jerry Brown [official website], who were originally defendants in the lawsuit, refused to continue defending the measure on appeal [JURIST report], leaving defendant-intervenors Project Marriage and other groups to defend the law. In February, the Supreme Court of California announced that it would decide the critical procedural issue [JURIST report] to determine if the pending federal appeal of the invalidation of Proposition 8 can continue.

The speech comes on the heels of Holder's failed attempts to try the 9/11 conspirators in civil trials [JURIST report] in New York. Holder announced earlier this month that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and four other co-conspirators will be tried before a military commission [JURIST report]. Holder referred the cases to the Department of Defense [official website] after Congress imposed a series of restrictions [JURIST report] barring the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the US. Holder refused to delay the trial any longer for the sake of the victims of the 9/11 attacks and their families, explaining that the restrictions are not likely to be repealed in the immediate future.