The case turns in part on the extent to which this Court has sufficient expertise and information in the record to mandate, under the Constitution, the specific restrictions and limitations sought by those who challenge the visual search procedures at issue. In addressing this type of constitutional claim courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security. That necessary showing has not been made in this case.

The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in October. Counsel for Florence argued that the search was illegal because it was not based on reasonable suspicion, but was based on a jail policy that subjected every arrestee to a strip search. Counsel stated that the case was distinct from the situation in Bell v. Wolfish [opinion], where the court ruled that the possible innocence of arrestees should not prevent officials from performing searches in order to maintain their facility. Counsel made a distinction between major versus minor offenders, arguing that strip searches are more warranted for offenders who are "inclined to violence," and called any argument finding suspicion that Florence was smuggling contraband "laugh out loud funny." Counsel requested that the jail's blanketed policy be replaced by a case-by-case review. Counsel for the facilities argued that there was no reasonable suspicion requirement in the case because the search was more cursory and not invasive, like a cavity search. Counsel further argued that the classification of the offense should not matter because minor offenders could just as easily as major offenders smuggle contraband into the prison population. Counsel asked that the court give deference to the judgment of prison officials as to what is appropriate.

Tymoshenko is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence after she was convicted of abusing her power [JURIST report] during her service as prime minister. In December the EU policy chief criticized the court of appeals [JURIST report] in Tymoshenko's case for not addressing the actual legal issues of the case. Earlier that month, Tymoshenko ended her appeal in Ukrainian courts [JURIST report] in order to focus on appeals in the ECHR. Her initial appeal was denied [JURIST report] that same month.

The Philippines has faced a lot of turmoil in recent years. Prior to the publishing of the HRW report in 2011, Aquino signed an executive order setting up a "truth commission" [JURST report] in 2010 to investigate allegations that the outgoing administration of former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] engaged in corruption and rights violations. Arroyo pleaded not guilty to electoral fraud charges in February after being formally charged [JURIST reports] last year. Arroyo was elected to the lower house of parliament in April 2010 after receiving permission to run for the seat [JURIST report] despite protests that her presidency gave her an unfair advantage. In March of that year, Aquino and other presidential candidates criticized as "unjust" a Supreme Court ruling that allowed Arroyo to appoint a replacement for the retiring chief justice [JURIST report], who planned to step down a week after the May presidential elections. Arroyo declared martial law [JURIST report] in December 2009 for the first time in 23 years in the wake of a massacre in the Maguindanao province that left 57 dead.

Mali has experienced military turmoil since Taureg rebels began attacking Malian soldiers [Al Jazeera report] in January. Last week, the acting head of the EU delegation in Mali, Bertrand Soret, met with the Sanogo and urged a quick return to constitutional order [JURIST report]. Soret indicated that the EU expected the Malian military to find a solution to the current crisis, and that he has asked to have access to government ministers that have been detained by the military. Last month, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) [official website] said that more than 80,000 people had fled Mali [press release] to escape the fighting. In February, the UNHCR appealed for additional funds and resources [report, PDF] to deal with the crisis, after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] expressed concern [statement] about the growing number of refugees in the region.

The court also granted certiorari in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF] to determine whether government actions that impose recurring flood invasions must continue permanently to take property within the meaning of the Takings Clause [Fifth Amendment text]. Petitioner Arkansas Game & Fish Commission [official website] sought just compensation from the US for physically taking its bottomland hardwood timber through six consecutive years of protested flooding during the sensitive growing season. The Court of Federal Claims awarded $5.7 million, finding that the Army Corps of Engineers' actions foreseeably destroyed and degraded more than 18 million board feet of timber, left habitat unable to regenerate and preempted Petitioner's use and enjoyment. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trial judgment [opinion], ruling that the US did not inflict a taking because its actions were not permanent and the flooding eventually stopped.

Also Monday the court dismissed the writ of certiorari [opinion, PDF] as improvidently granted in Vasquez v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF]. The court had originally agreed to determine whether the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit violated the Supreme Court's precedent on harmless error. Alexander Vasquez was convicted on drug-related charges on a considerable amount of untainted evidence. However, the prosecution submitted tapes, and the court held they could be heard as to the truth of the situation, where Vasquez's wife stated that Vasquez's attorney said Vasquez would lose the case and should plead guilty. The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case last month.

Since controversy arose over the killing of Bin Laden [JURIST report] by US forces in Pakistan last May, Pakistan's alliance with the US has been questioned. In December the Supreme Court of Pakistan [official website] formed a judicial committee to investigate a secret memo sent from an unknown Pakistani source to US Admiral Mike Mullen in May asking for help in preventing a suspected army coup. Former Pakistan ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari [BBC profile] have been accused of writing or having knowledge of the memo, and both have denied these allegations. The growing conflict between the US and Pakistan was analyzed by JURIST guest columnist Sikander Ahmed Shah in Drone Strikes in Pakistan: Examining Consent in International Law [JURIST op-ed]. Pakistan has also faced an ongoing struggle with corruption that the courts have attempted to battle.

The Bahraini government has been subject to numerous criticisms for its use of excessive force against citizen protesters. Last month Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] urged the Bahraini government to release al-Khawaja so that he does not die as a result of his 50-day hunger strike. Al-Khawaja, a Danish citizen, former protection coordinator with Front Line Defenders [advocacy website] and leading Bahraini human rights defender, was arrested for leading protests against the Bahraini government. AI said that Al-Khawaja was sentenced without a fair trial and was subject to torture and ill-treatment [JURIST report] while in custody. However, no investigation to verify such ill-treatment had been initiated.

Israel's policy toward Palestinians and Jewish settlement continues to create tension in the country. Israel announced last week that the country will sever ties [JURIST report] to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] after it commenced an international investigation into Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The UNHRC launched an independent investigation a week earlier to determine the effect that Israeli settlements have had on the civil, political, economic and cultural rights of the Palestinian people. In February, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged Israel to change its policies [JURIST report] that forbid Palestinians from traveling through and living in Gaza and the West Bank. The report described the policy as causing separation within Palestinian families when some are trapped inside Israel while their family members are forbidden from entering. In January, the Israeli Supreme Court upheld [JURIST report] a law that prevents Palestinians who marry Israelis from obtaining Israeli citizenship.