To plant sectarian prayers at the heart of local government is a prescription for religious discord. ... That the Board and religious leaders in Forsyth County hold steadfast to their faith is certainly no cause for condemnation. But where prayer in public fora is concerned, the deep beliefs of the speaker afford only more reason to respect the profound convictions of the listener. Free religious exercise posits broad religious tolerance. The policy here, as implemented, upsets the careful balance the First Amendment seeks to bring about.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] in June that the New York City Department of Education [official website] can enforce a rule prohibiting outside groups from using school facilities for after-school worship services. In April, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff [official website] petitioned [JURIST report] the US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] to decide whether crosses placed beside highways as memorials to deceased Utah Highway Patrol (UHP) [official website] troopers is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The petition seeks review of an August 2010 ruling [JURIST report] by the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit [official website], which found that "the cross memorials would convey to a reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity." Also last month, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] a constitutional challenge to the National Day of Prayer (NDP) [official website], overturning an earlier lower court decision [JURIST report] that found the event in violation of the Establishment Clause by representing government-backed encouragement that Americans engage in non-secular activity.

The purpose of filing in the federal district court is to ensure that the changes to Florida's election law are judged on their merits by eliminating the risk of a ruling impacted by outside influence . . . Since the passage of HB 1355, we have seen misinformation surrounding the bill increase. By asking a court to rule on certain aspects of the bill, we are assured of a neutral evaluation based on the facts.

The Florida House of Representatives [official website] in May voted [JURIST report] 77-38 to pass the controversial legislation revising the state's election laws, only hours after the Senate [official website] did so by a 25-13 margin. The bill limits the window for early voting to one week prior to an election, and imposes a series of additional regulations on organizations that enlist new voters, including that they register with the state, submit periodic reports and file voter registration materials within 48 hours of completion. Opponents to the legislation charge that its design is politically motivated to disproportionately affect Democratic constituencies, though its supporters argue that the measures are intended only to reduce election-related expenses and voter fraud. In June, the Florida American Civil Liberties Union [official website] filed suit challenging the election [JURIST report] law changes because they believe it will affect the voting ability of minorities.

Florida's strict liability drug statute also runs afoul of due process limits when viewed from the perspective of the nature of the activity regulated. Where laws proscribe conduct that is neither inherently dangerous nor likely to be regulated, the Supreme Court has consistently either invalidated them or construed them to require proof of mens rea in order to avoid criminalizing "a broad range of apparently innocent conduct." Under this reasoning, not even a small criminal penalty may constitutionally be imposed without proof of guilty knowledge where the conduct at issue includes a wide array of innocuous behavior or behavior not inherently likely to be regulated."

The state is expected to appeal [NYT report] the decision as it may affect hundreds of convictions as well as other pending cases.

Florida continues to see challenges to its seemingly harsh drug-related rules. Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLUFL) [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging an executive order that mandates state government agencies provide pre-employment drug screening for all prospective employees and provide for random drug testing of all current agency employees regardless of classification. Governor Rick Scott [official website] issued Executive Order 11-58 [text, PDF] in March and directed the drug testing policy to go into effect by May 21, 2011. The complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida [official website] on behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 79 (AFSCME) [union website], a union representing 50,000 public workers affected by the order. In the complaint, the ACLUFL argues that the order violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable governmental searches and case law stating that drug-testing without suspicion is unreasonable except under certain circumstances, such as when employees are involved in "safety-sensitive" positions. The ACLUFL points out that the governor's reasoning behind the order was not to promote safety, but to exert control over employees in order to maintain discipline and lessen absenteeism.

[E]mbodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law. . . Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit. Today we will continue the fight for quality, fairness and the rule of law. . . It's absurd to conclude that banning racial discrimination somehow perpetuates racial discrimination. It simply defies common sense.

The Sixth Circuit's ruling reversed a 2008 decision by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan [official website] to dismiss the challenge [JURIST report] with prejudice. District Court Judge David Lawson had found that Proposal 2 was "facially neutral" regarding racial discrimination and did not violate the US Constitution. Michigan voters approved [JURIST report] the constitutional amendment in November 2006, and it was initially expected to take effect in late December 2006. In December 2006, a federal judge ruled that the universities could delay implementing the proposal [JURIST report] until the they had completed the 2006-2007 admission cycle under current procedures, but that order was later stayed [opinion, PDF] by the Sixth Circuit. The US Supreme Court [official website] declined [JURIST report] to consider whether the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University could delay implementing Proposal 2 in early 2007.

The ability to visualize a DNA molecule through a microscope, or by any other means, when it is bonded to other genetic material, is worlds apart from possessing an isolated DNA molecule that is in hand and usable. It is the difference between knowledge of nature and reducing a portion of nature to concrete form, the latter activity being what the patent laws seek to encourage and protect.

The court's decision countered the position held by the Obama administration, which submitted an amicus curie brief [text, PDF] in support of the ACLU and PUBPAT. Nevertheless, the US Patent and Trademark Office [official website] has issued patents for genes for decades. Such patents cover nearly 2,000 human genes and genetic research companies hold patents to approximately 20 percent of the human genetic code. Many of the patented genes are associated with diseases such as Alzheimer's and cancer. Supporters of the decision argue that restricting patents on human genes would decrease the amount of genetic research performed by the public sector because it would no longer be profitable for companies to study human genes. Currently, the holder of a gene patent can prevent others from studying the gene and can also develop testing for specific genetic mutations, which they can then market without direct competition.

Last week, an Egyptian criminal court postponed the trial [JURIST report] of former interior minister Habib el-Adly, who also faces murder charges in relation to the pro-democracy demonstrations, until August 3. Mubarak was hospitalized in April [JURIST report], just days before he was scheduled to appear before Egypt's public prosecutor for questioning about his alleged roles in protester deaths and embezzlement of government money. In March, a commission of Arab and Egyptian human rights groups accused Mubarak [JURIST report] and the police of murdering protesters during the demonstrations in Egypt. Mubarak could face the death penalty [JURIST report] if convicted of ordering attacks on protesters. Rights group Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] has reported that at least 840 people were killed [JURIST report], and more than 6,000 were injured, during the Egyptian protests.