Ohio's death penalty procedures have been the source or concern and increased judicial scrutiny recently. In early February the US Supreme Court [official website] denied [JURIST report] Ohio's request to put a condemned killer to death, effectively putting the state's executions on hold pending a review of new procedures. Last November, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor instructed the state's death panel review committee [JURIST report] that its purpose was to provide "guidance on the current laws on the subject, the practices in other jurisdictions, the date, the costs, and many other aspects associated with the death penalty." O'Connor announced the formation of the committee [JURIST report] last September, declaring that it would be responsible for ensuring that the death penalty law is "administered in the most fair, efficient, and judicious manner possible." In March 2010, the Supreme Court refused to stay the execution of an Ohio inmate [JURIST report] who challenged the state's single-drug lethal injection protocol, which was changed [JURIST report] in November 2009 from the previously used three-drug method. Ohio conducted its first execution [JURIST report] using the new method in December 2009. The change in protocol came after the state reviewed its lethal injection practices [JURIST report] following a failed execution in September 2009.

The investigation began [JURIST report] in October 2010 with the forming of a bipartisan group called the Mortgage Foreclosure Multistate Group (MFMG). In June 2010, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., a subsidiary of Bank of America, reached a $108 million settlement agreement [JURIST report] with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] to resolve charges that the subsidiary collected excessive fees from homeowners facing foreclosure. In September 2010, a federal judge refused to dismiss a suit [JURIST report] against American International Group (AIG) [corporate website], and in August, a federal judge rejected a $75 million settlement [JURIST report] between Citigroup and the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] because the two companies misled investors. In 2009, the US Senate [official website] rejected a bill [S 896 materials] that would have aided homeowners in foreclosure [JURIST report] by allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages from lenders that had not already offered better terms to their borrowers.

Debate over these laws has sparked controversy leading up to presidential and congressional elections in November, as well as a number of legal challenges. The Brennan Center for Justice [advocacy website] released a similar report [JURIST report] in October, claiming these laws could have an adverse affect on qualified voters. In Wisconsin, two cases challenging the constitutionality of the state's voter ID law are being sent to the Wisconsin Supreme Court [JURIST report]. That court will rule on whether a temporary injunction against the law will stand, but it is not clear yet whether it will also rule on the constitutionality of the law. In February South Carolina brought a suit [JURIST report] against the US Department of Justice after it blocked the state's enforcement of a voter law requiring a government-issued photo ID. The DOJ has the power to do this pursuant to the Voting Rights Act [Cornell LII backgrounder], which allows the federal government to screen any new voting laws passed by states with a history of voter discrimination. Last year the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the state's law [JURIST report] that requires voters to show one of six government-issued IDs.

Bout's trial lasted three weeks, and he was convicted after two days of jury deliberation. Bout pleaded not guilty in November 2010, days after the Thai government extradited him [JURIST reports] to the US to stand trial. A month earlier Bout filed an appeal challenging the Bangkok Criminal Court's decision to dismiss [JURIST reports] money laundering and fraud charges against him, which removed obstacles to his US extradition. According to Bout's lawyer Lak Nitiwatanavichan, the arms dealer was seeking to have these charges reinstated [Bangkok Post report] to avoid extradition to the US. In August of that year an appeals court in Thailand ruled that Bout could be extradited [JURIST report], overturning a decision it issued a year earlier refusing to extradite Bout [JURIST report] on the basis that the accusations made by the US were not cognizable under Thai law. Bout was the subject of the book "Merchant of Death" [Reuters report], which inspired the 2005 movie of the same title, and is suspected of involvement in arms trafficking to conflict zones in Africa, South America and the Middle East.

Plaintiffs seek to present evidence to support their allegation that this particular Ordinance encompasses a myriad of weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and fall outside the scope of the dangers sought to be protected under the Ordinance. Without a national uniform definition of assault weapons from which to judge these weapons, it cannot be ascertained at this stage of the proceedings whether these arms with these particular attributes as defined in this Ordinance are well suited for self-defense or sport or would be outweighed completely by the collateral damage resulting from their use, making them "dangerous and unusual" as articulated in Heller.

The ruling is the latest in the continuing gun control controversy. In March, a federal judge in Maryland ruled a portion of a gun permit law unconstitutional [JURIST report]. Illinois citizens challenged [JURIST report] the Cook County ordinance in July 2010, just weeks after the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled that the Second Amendment applies to states and municipalities [JURIST report] in addition to the federal government, citing the holding in District of Columbia v. Heller [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report]. In Heller the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.

Google is also facing both international and national criticism over its privacy policy. Last month, a Japanese court ordered Google to remove certain search terms [JURIST report] that a Japanese man claimed violated his privacy, by suggesting his name in connection with crimes he did not commit. Also last month, the Commission Nationales de l'Informatque (CNIL) [official website], France's data protection regulator, gave Google three weeks to answer questions [JURIST report] about its new privacy policy [text] as part of a Europe-wide investigation on behalf of all European data protection regulators. The new policy, which took effect earlier in March, may violate European law [JURIST report] according to the EU's Justice Commissioner Vice-President Viviane Reding [official website]. In February, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed [JURIST report] a suit from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) [advocacy website], a consumer privacy group, asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] to block Google's proposed privacy policy changes. The new policy allows a user's information to be shared among different Google products, including YouTube, Gmail, and Google Maps.

The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.

Debate over the law has been ongoing since Congress passed [JURIST report] comprehensive health care reform in March 2010. The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments in the case of United States Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida over the course of an unprecedented three days last month. On day one of oral arguments [JURIST report], the court heard arguments on the issue of whether the PPACA is is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 (AIA) [text]. On day two [JURIST report], the court heard arguments focused specifically on the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" provision [text], which requires every person, with some exceptions for religious and other reasons, to purchase some form of health insurance by January 1, 2014, or be subject to a penalty. On the final day [JURIST report], the court heard arguments on the issue of whether the "individual mandate" can be severed from the rest of the PPACA. The Supreme Court agreed to rule on [JURIST report] the health care law case in November of last year on appeal from US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website], which ruled in August that the individual mandate is unconstitutional but severable [JURIST report], upholding the rest of the law.