Setting aside the lack of any precedent on point, a Tenth Amendment challenge to the individual mandate fails for an additional, and critical, reason: when a federal law is properly within Congress' delegated power to enact, the Tenth Amendment poses no limit on the exercise of that power. Since the individual mandate falls within Congress' commerce power, its enactment is a proper exercise of a power "delegated to the United States by the Constitution." The Tenth Amendment, therefore, has no individual role to play. In short, the plaintiffs' individual liberty claims find little support in the Constitution—whether pegged to the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause or the Tenth Amendment's reservation of power to the people. At bottom, Congress rationally concluded that the uninsured's consumption of health care services, in the aggregate, shifts enormous costs on to others and thus substantially affects interstate commerce.

Oral arguments [JURIST report] in the Eleventh Circuit's review of the PPACA were heard in June. Former solicitor general Paul Clement, representing Florida and 26 other states backing the lawsuit, argued that Congress has never before used the Commerce Clause power to force citizens to purchase something. The Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] argued that the choice not to purchase insurance affects everyone. Also in June, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] found the individual mandate provision constitutional [JURIST report]. The court determined that the penalty is not a tax for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code [text] and went on to state that the health care market "is large and is inextricably linked to interstate commerce" and that those who choose to not purchase health insurance substantially affect interstate commerce through cost-shifting that drives up insurance premiums. As a result, the Court determined that Congress did not violate the Commerce Clause, finding it had a rational basis for the individual mandate because "the provision regulates active participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity." The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] heard arguments [JURIST report] over PPACA in May but has not yet issued a ruling.

To be sure, the drafters of the Arizona Constitution deliberately created an individual right of privacy that is not expressly set forth in the federal Bill of Rights. But the specific and limited regulations here, substantial equivalent of which have already been held not to offend the penumbral right of privacy that gave rise to federal abortion rights, do not implicate fundamental rights that are in any way unique to Arizona, its history or the intent of the framers of its Constitution. The fundamental rule of judicial restraint is to avoid constitutional questions unless "absolutely necessary" to decide the case. Therefore, because Arizona’s citizens may "assert the right to choose as defined and articulated by the United States Supreme Court," we too "reach no conclusion about whether the Arizona Constitution provides a right of choice."

Earlier this year, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer [official website] signed into law a bill outlawing abortions performed based on the sex or race of the fetus [JURIST report]. Representative Steve Montenegro sponsored HB 2442 and HB 2443 [legislative materials], which separately outlaw abortions based on the child's sex or race. Under the new abortion law, a physician or health professional who does not report known or suspected violations will face felony charges and civil fines and may be liable for damages. In May, a judge for the US District Court for the District of South Dakota [official website] issued a preliminary injunction [order, PDF] blocking a South Dakota abortion regulation [HB 1217] requiring a 72-hour waiting period [JURIST report].

In its judgement the court has noted that pirates often use extreme violence, leading to tremendous suffering among the crew members whom they take hostage in order to collect ransom moneys. The court has emphasized that piracy in the Gulf of Aden has turned into a significant threat for all ships that frequent that region. The free and unfettered transport of cargo, resources and fuels can no longer be guaranteed. Global economic consequences can no longer be ruled out.

Last month, three accused Somali pirates pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to hijacking a US vessel that resulted in the deaths of four US citizens. In March, a grand jury in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia indicted 14 suspects, 13 Somali and one Yemeni, for hijacking the Quest. The Yemeni suspect pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in July and awaits sentencing scheduled for October. Several other suspects pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in May. Earlier this month, five Somali pirates went on trial [JURIST report] in a Dutch court for hijacking a South African yacht and kidnapping its crew. In April, a Somali pirate was sentenced [JURIST report] by the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] to 25 years in prison for attacking a Danish ship off the coast of Somalia in 2008, for which he and other pirates received a $1.7 million ransom. In May, courts in both Spain and South Korea [JURIST reports] sentenced Somali pirates to life imprisonment.

Ben Ali fled Tunisia to Saudi Arabia in January during protests against his 23-year autocratic rule in which his family amassed substantial wealth [Reuters report] that many Tunisians say was at their expense. But Ben Ali said that he was "duped" into leaving [AFP report] the capital Tunis, according to a statement released through his lawyer. He said that he was trying to get his family out of the country after assassination threats and that the plane left him in Saudi Arabia despite orders to wait for him. Ben Ali has denied the charges against him [JURIST report] which stem mostly from allegations that he authorized the use of force against protesters during the Tunisian revolution, resulting in more than 200 deaths. Justice Minister Lazhar Karoui Chebbi [profile, in French] announced the issuance of an arrest warrant for Ben Ali in January, though the country has not received a response to its request to extradite [JURIST reports] the former leader from Saudi Arabia, where he remains in exile. Chebbi announced that Ben Ali had been charged with 18 offenses [JURIST report] in April.

Let me also remind all those allegedly involved in those terrorist crimes in Lebanon that nothing, I repeat, nothing will deflect or prevent the Tribunal from fulfilling its mission. The lofty ideals on which the Tribunal is grounded (accountability, dispensation of justice to contribute to long-term peace and reconciliation, safeguarding the rights of the victims) are solidly ingrained in our Statute and our Rules and jealously protected by the Judges. They cannot be set aside by a stroke of the pen, by mere rhetoric or even by violence. The march to justice is inexorable, and one way or another we will end up with a trial. I therefore strongly appeal to the accused to take advantage of the broad legal possibilities offered by our Rules of Procedure and Evidence, thereby contributing to the establishment of truth and the conduct of fair proceedings.

In February, the appeals chamber of the STL issued a unanimous ruling [summary, PDF] on several procedural issues, including the definition of terrorism [JURIST report], in judicial proceedings. The STL began debate on the issue [JURIST report] to determine which laws to apply in the case against persons accused of involvement in the February 2005 truck bomb that killed Hariri and 22 other people. Using the Article 314 of the Lebanese Criminal Code [text, PDF], the court held that a conviction on the charge of terrorism requires proof of an act intended to spread terror and use of a means "liable to create a public danger," that the only requirement is that "the means used to carry out the terrorist attack be liable to create a common danger" and that the trial judges should be given latitude in determining whether the requirement was met after having considered the facts presented in the case. Last August, Hezbollah submitted evidence to the STL [JURIST report] linking Israel with the bombing. The STL asked for the evidence [JURIST report] a week earlier after Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah [BBC profile] claimed to have proof that Israel was behind the bombing. The STL was established in 2005 at the request of the Lebanese government to try those alleged to be connected to the bombing in which Hariri was killed by explosions detonated near his motorcade in Beirut.

There is no justice in Ukraine. This is judicial lawlessness, when a person is arrested and she can't appeal this decision. It's absurd. In its decision the court referred to the fact that we based our appeal on the Constitution and Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which says that national legislation must provide the opportunity to appeal an order of arrest. And even if the laws don't, then the institution of appeal must make a decision based on the Convention. The judges provided no justification for her decision. She said that Ukrainian law does not provide for appeal. She doesn't refer to international law or the Constitution, and just says that national law, meaning the Criminal Procedure Code, doesn't provide for appeal. It's absurd.

Last week, Ukrainian Judge Rodion Kireyev rejected a request [JURIST report] from Tymoshenko to release her from prison. Kireyev again refused to recuse himself the week before, and Tymoshenko announced that she was allowed to call only two of her proposed witnesses [press releases]. In July, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) [official website, in Ukrainian] announced that they are launching a criminal investigation [JURIST report] into United Energy Systems of Ukraine (UESU), an energy company at one time headed by Tymoshenko. Last month, Tymoshenko filed a complaint [JURIST report] with the ECHR alleging violations of the European Convention of Human Rights [text, PDF]. The complaint argued that the charges against Tymoshenko are politically engineered by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych [official website, in Ukrainian], Tymoshenko's political rival. ECHR President Jean Paul Costa refused to comment on the complaint [Korrespondent report, in Russian], but said the matter was before the court. The current combined case against her is not the first time she has been prosecuted. Last May, prosecutors reopened a separate criminal investigation [JURIST report] into allegations that Tymoshenko attempted to bribe Supreme Court judges. Tymoshenko's government was dissolved in March 2010 after she narrowly lost the presidential election to Yanukovych. Tymoshenko had alleged that widespread voter fraud allowed Yanukovych to win the election.

Despite the ages of the accused, prosecutions of Nazis continue around the world. Earlier this month, both the prosecution and the defense in the case of alleged Nazi Sandor Kepiro have announced they will be appealing a Hungarian court's decision to acquit [JURIST reports]. Kepiro was acquitted of participating in the 1942 Novi Sad massacre in Serbia. In May, the trial of accused Nazi guard John Demjanjuk [NNDB profile, JURIST news archive] ended when he was convicted [JURIST report] but released because of his advanced age. An appeal [JURIST report] of his release is pending. In November, Nazi guard Samuel Kunz [Trial Watch profile], 89, passed away [JURIST report] in his home before he could be brought to trial. He was accused of aiding in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jewish people at the Belzec concentration camp [HRP backgrounder].

Petitioner's only claimed injury is that the OPD refused to investigate Dr. Leso based on [a previously filed] complaint. This is patently insufficient to constitute an "injury in fact," as petitioner fails to allege that he suffered an actual harm, much less one "different in kind or degree from that suffered by the public at large." ... Petitioner nowhere alleges that the OPD's decision personally impacted him or his practice.

The lawsuit stemmed from the CJA's previously filed licensing complaint [text, PDF] against Leso. The OPD denied jurisdiction [ruling, PDF] over the complaint on the grounds that Leso's conduct was not consistent with the practice of psychology as defined under New York law, and therefore was not governed by New York rules of professional ethics. The complaint has been one of many condemnations of Guantanamo Bay medical professionals. One year before this complaint was filed, the International Committee of the Red Cross [official website] reported that medical professionals violated codes of medical ethics [JURIST report] by participating in and assisting in ill-treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees.