Anwar was arrested in July 2008 after he filed a lawsuit against his accuser [JURIST reports] in late June. Last December, Anwar filed a complaint [JURIST report] in a Malaysian court over a WikiLeaks [website] cable published by Australian newspapers stating he had engaged in sodomy. The leaked US diplomatic cable claimed Australia's Office of National Assessments [official website] had concluded, in agreement with Singapore's Intelligence Agency, that the sodomy charges against Anwar were the result of a set-up, but that he was in fact guilty of committing the acts. Last year, the Federal Court of Malaysia [official website], the country's highest court, rejected Anwar's 2006 defamation suit against against former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad [BBC profile] for allegedly suggesting at a human rights conference that Anwar was unfit for office because of his supposed homosexuality. Anwar was Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister under former Mahathir Mohamad until he was fired in 1998 following earlier sodomy charges of which he was initially convicted but later acquitted. He reentered Malaysian politics following the expiration of a ten-year ban [JURIST report] against him for unrelated corruption charges.

The ruling overturned the decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website], which held [opinion, PDF] that the FOIA information was not a report or investigation under the statute and was not barred from litigation. The Supreme Court specifically rejected the circuit court's argument applying the noscitur a sociis canon to find that the meaning of report was narrower than the ordinary meaning based on the words immediately neighboring it. At oral arguments, counsel for Schindler Elevator argued that the circuit court decision opens the door to "a host of lawsuits by relators with no meaningful information to contribute," which is a situation that the public disclosure bar was created to prevent. In response, counsel for the government and Kirk argued that Schindler's overly broad application of the public disclosure bar harms the policy goal of "encourag[ing] whistleblowers specifically to use government records in their investigations" under the False Claims Act.

The upshot is that we can agree with CIGNA only to a limited extent. We believe that, to obtain relief by surcharge for violations of §§102(a) and 104(b), a plan participant or beneficiary must show that the violation injured him or her. But to do so, he or she need only show harm and causation. Although it is not always necessary to meet the more rigorous standard implicit in the words "detrimental reliance," actual harm must be shown.

We are not asked to reassess the evidence. And we are not asked about the other prerequisites for relief. We are asked about the standard of prejudice. And we conclude that the standard of prejudice must be borrowed from equitable principles, as modified by the obligations and injuries identified by ERISA itself. Information-related circumstances, violations, and injuries are potentially too various in nature to insist that harm must always meet that more vigorous "detrimental harm" standard when equity imposed no such strict requirement.

The circuit courts have been deeply divided over the issue of what standard to apply, with some requiring a showing of prejudice or reliance in order to recover benefits and others only requiring a discrepancy between the explanation of benefits and the terms of the plan. The Second Circuit has been the only circuit to apply the "likely harm" standard.

The Supreme Court's ruling laid to rest a circuit court split with five different tests being used to determine whether the police-created exigency exception applied, with the states developing more. The Kentucky Supreme Court had applied a two-pronged test whereby a warrantless arrest is not allowed when either the police deliberately created the exigency in bad faith or whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the police action would create an exigency.

Also Monday, the court declined to hear an appeal on the CIA's extraordinary rendition program [JURIST news archive]. In a September en banc rehearing, the full US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the suit [JURIST reports] against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan [corporate website] on the basis of the state secrets privilege [JURIST news archive]. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] appealed [JURIST report] to the Supreme Court in December.

The court also declined to rule on an attempt to remove the phrase "so help me God" from the presidential oath. The challenge was brought by atheist Michael Newdow [JURIST news archive] and several other groups, who claimed the phrase violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment [text]. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected [JURIST report] Newdow's claim last May.

Muammar Gaddafi committed the crimes with the goal of preserving his authority. ... The [ICC prosecutor's office] was able to gather direct evidence about orders issued by Muammar Gaddafi himself. The evidence shows that Gaddafi relied on his inner circle to implement a systematic policy of suppressing any challenge to his authority.

Ocampo had previously said that his office was planning to seek five arrest warrants [JURIST report] in connection with Gaddafi's administration. He indicated that there was strong evidence of Gaddafi's involvement in various crimes against humanity, including the shooting of civilians, massive arrests, torture and forced disappearances. Ocampo revealed in April that his office had uncovered evidence [JURIST report] that Gaddafi planned to attack civilians to forestall regime-toppling revolution. Ocampo indicated that the plans were made in response to the conflicts in Tunisia and Egypt and included shooting civilians. In March, Ocampo told the press that he was 100 percent certain his office would bring charges [JURIST report] against Gaddafi. Also in March, the ICC launched a probe into allegations of crimes against humanity [JURIST report] by the Libyan government.