In April, the US Supreme Court [official website] denied [JURIST report] Virginia's request for the court to rule on the constitutionality of the health care reform law on an expedited basis. The writ was filed [JURIST report] in February by Cuccinelli, who sought to have the high court depart from its traditional procedure and instead review the constitutionality of the law before the Fourth Circuit ruled on the issue. Additional challenges to the law continue to proceed through the lower courts. In April, a judge for the US District Court for the District of New Jersey [official website] rejected [JURIST report] a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. Judge Freda Wolfson dismissed the lawsuit, brought without an attorney by two New Jersey residents, on jurisdictional grounds, ruling the two men had no standing [Cornell LII backgrounder] to challenge the law. In a similar ruling earlier in April, a judge for the US District Court for the District of New Hampshire [official website] dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] also challenging the law's constitutionality and held that the plaintiff, 80-year-old Harold Peterson, lacked standing because his Medicare coverage automatically satisfied the law's insurance mandate. A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website] struck down the law in January, while in October, a judge in Michigan upheld the law [JURIST report]. US Courts of Appeal for the Third, Sixth and Eleventh circuits are all currently scheduled to hear oral arguments in appeals of lower court rulings, while appeals are pending in the DC circuit as well as the Eighth and Ninth circuits.

In March, Polish prosecutors investigating the alleged secret CIA prison announced that they were asking US officials to question al-Nashiri and a second Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee who claims he was held and abused at the site. The OSJI, which helped to launch the abuse investigation [JURIST report] last September, urged the US to provide assistance. The investigation into al-Nashiri's allegations of the secret prison's existence and his abuse there began soon after former Polish prime minister Leszek Miller denied any knowledge of a secret CIA prison [JURIST report] in Poland. His denial followed confirmation by a former CIA agent that the agency tortured [Spiegel report] al-Nashiri in 2002 at a secret prison located in Poland. According to the agent, al-Nashiri was stripped naked and hooded before a gun and a drill were held close to his head. Former Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski has also denied the existence of the prisons. Both he and Miller maintain that they will not discuss the allegations of torture until the completion of an investigation into Poland's role in the US prisoner rendition [JURIST news archive] program. The original investigation into the existence of the CIA-operated prison was launched by the Polish government [JURIST report] in September 2008.

Prosecutors said last month that Mubarak could face the death penalty [JURIST report] if convicted of ordering attacks on protesters during the demonstrations in Egypt [JURIST news archive] early this year. Mubarak is also facing charges of corruption and embezzlement of public funds. His detention, extended [JURIST report] last month to give authorities more time to decide if they want to send him to jail or a prison hospital, was extended again Tuesday. He is being detained at Sharm el-Sheikh International Hospital after he was hospitalized for heart trouble. Also last month, an Egyptian court ordered that Mubarak's political party be dissolved [JURIST report]. The country's High Administrative Court said It would be illogical for Mubarak's National Democratic Party, which took control in 1978, to remain an entity. The court also liquidated the party's assets. Analysts call the court's decision an important step in the building of a multi-party system, which the country has not had for more than 30 years.

As the District Court concluded after an evidentiary hearing, the proposed constitutional amendment has harmful, real-world consequences. The measure tramples the free exercise rights of a disfavored minority faith and constrains the ability of Plaintiff Muneer Awad and his fellow Muslims in Oklahoma to execute valid wills, assert religious liberty claims under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, and enjoy equal access to the state judicial system.

The "Save Our State Amendment" also undercuts a central tenet of the Establishment Clause, sending an unmistakable message that Muslims are religious and political outsiders in their own State. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in preliminarily enjoining this unprecedented measure.

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 against the use of Islamic law in Oklahoma. Duncan defended SQ 755 as necessary to protect Oklahoma [MSNBC video] from an attack on the fundamental Judeo-Christian principles on which he says the US is founded. Several other state legislatures are now considering similar measures.

Last July, the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] granted a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] to the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] blocking implementation of the law. In affirming that decision, the Ninth Circuit held that "the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the United States demonstrated that it faced irreparable harm and that granting the preliminary injunction properly balanced the equities and was in the public interest." In addressing the equities and public interest, the Ninth Circuit indicated that the constitutional infringement of the Supremacy Clause [text] alleged by the DOJ could itself constitute irreparable harm to the federal government absent injunctive relief. The DOJ had sued [JURIST report] Arizona and Brewer last year, arguing that both the Constitution and federal law "do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country." The agency also claimed that the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters and that the enforcement of the Arizona law is counterproductive to the national immigration policy.