Under the principles of the doctrine of comity applied in our State, Maryland courts will withhold recognition of a valid foreign marriage only if that marriage is "repugnant" to State public policy. This threshold, a high bar, has not been met yet; e.g., no still viable decision by this Court has deemed a valid foreign marriage to be “repugnant,” despite being void or punishable as a misdemeanor or more serious crime were it performed in Maryland. The present case will be treated no differently. A valid out-of-state same-sex marriage should be treated by Maryland courts as worthy of divorce, according to the applicable statutes, reported cases, and court rules of this State.

Same-sex marriage continues to be a controversial and divisive issue throughout the US. Earlier this week Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee signed an executive order [JURIST report] requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state. US President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage last week just one day after voters in North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment to ban it [JURIST report]. Same-sex marriage is now legal in Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia [JURIST reports].

This legislation is about protecting the integrity of Mississippi's elections. ... This legislation is a direct result of the majority of Mississippians expressing their desire for a constitutional voter ID requirement in the state. We want everyone to participate in the election process, and we want that process to be fair and secure.

There are now 32 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, but the issue remains controversial. Earlier this month, a coalition of civil rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's new voter ID law [JURIST reports]. Last month a Wisconsin appeals court refused to rule on an injunction [JURIST report] currently blocking that state's voter ID law. In February the Virginia Senate approved a voter ID law [JURIST report]. Last June Missouri Governor Jay Nixon [official website] vetoed [JURIST report] a law requiring persons to present photo ID at voting booth.

Al-Bashir remains an extremely controversial figure in international politics for his actions during the Darfur conflict. The Kenyan High Court ruled in November that al-Bashir must be arrested [JURIST report] if he ever returns to Kenya. The ruling was in response to his second visit [JURIST report], where Kenya joined the ranks of the other African countries that have refused to enforce the ICC arrest warrant. The ICC requested in October that the Republic of Malawi explain [JURIST report] why that country's authorities failed to arrest al-Bashir during his widely reported visit there for a trade summit. Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website], in a press release on the day of al-Bashir's visit, urged Malawi to arrest the Sudanese president [JURIST report] and surrender him to the ICC for prosecution. Last June AI urged Malaysia to withdraw an invitation for al-Bashir to participate in an event there and to arrest him if he travels to the country [JURIST report]. Also in June, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo issued a statement claiming that al-Bashir has continued to commit crimes against humanity [JURIST report] in Darfur. Last May the ICC urged Djibouti to arrest al-Bashir [JURIST report].

The new information law and the creation of the truth commission have been hailed by many as positive steps forward for Brazil. The commission is authorized to investigate abuses that occurred under Brazil's military dictatorship, which reigned the country from 1964 to 1985, but its findings will not lead to any trials [Al Jazeera report] due to a military-era amnesty. During the swearing-in ceremony, Rousseff, who was herself imprisoned for three years [BBC profile] during the military dictatorship, said "Brazil deserves the truth, new generations deserve the truth, and—above all—those who lost friends and relatives and who continue to suffer as if they were dying again each day deserve the truth."

We conclude, on the record before us, that the town's prayer practice must be viewed as an endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint. This conclusion is supported by several considerations, including the prayer-giver selection process, the content of the prayers, and the contextual actions (and inactions) of prayer-givers and town officials. We emphasize that, in reaching this conclusion, we do not rely on any single aspect of the town’s prayer practice, but rather on the totality of the circumstances present in this case. The town's process for selecting prayer-givers virtually ensured a Christian viewpoint. Christian clergy delivered each and every one of the prayers for the first nine years of the town's prayer practice, and nearly all of the prayers thereafter. In the town's view, the preponderance of Christian clergy was the result of a random selection process. The randomness of the process, however, was limited by the town's practice of inviting clergy almost exclusively from places of worship located within the town's borders. The town fails to recognize that its residents may hold religious beliefs that are not represented by a place of worship within the town. Such residents may be members of congregations in nearby towns or, indeed, may not be affiliated with any congregation. The town is not a community of religious institutions, but of individual residents, and, at the least, it must serve those residents without favor or disfavor to any creed or belief. In our view, whether a town's prayer-selection process constitutes an establishment of religion depends on the extent to which the selection process results in a perspective that is substantially neutral amongst creeds.

The Second Circuit also ruled [JURIST report] last year 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. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last July upheld a ruling by a federal district court that the Forsyth County, North Carolina, Board of Commissioners violated the First Amendment by beginning its public meetings with sectarian prayer. This ruling was analyzed [JURIST comment] by JURIST Guest Columnist Katherine Lewis Parker, Legal Director at the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina [advocacy website], who concluded that prayer at government functions that adheres to a particular religious dogma is unacceptable because it has a coercive impact on listeners and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In April 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 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.

Brazil's truth commission was established on the basis of a law that Rousseff enacted [JURIST report] in November, and it will have two years to complete its work. Despite the existence of an amnesty law, this past March Brazilian prosecutors announced plans to charge a retired colonel [JURIST report] for his actions during a military dictatorship [investigation materials, PDF, in Portuguese]. In August AI urged Brazil to repeal its amnesty law [JURIST report]. Other Latin American countries have recently taken steps to end amnesties for their military dictatorships. In March AI urged government officials in El Salvador [JURIST report] to repeal [press release] a 1993 amnesty law that prevents any investigation [JURIST report] into killings committed during the country's 12-year civil war [PBS backgrounder], including the killing of respected Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Last year, the Uruguayan Supreme Court struck down [JURIST report] the country's Expiry Law, which granted amnesty to military officials accused of human rights violations during the country's 1973-1985 dictatorship. In 2005 Argentina's Supreme Court struck down similar amnesty laws [JURIST report] adopted in the 1980s to protect potential defendants, prompting the government to reopen hundreds of human rights cases.

Violations include coercion by immigration judges and deportation officers to get detainees to sign stipulated orders of removal, overburdened court dockets, delays in the removal process, failure to provide pro bono representation information, and lack of adequate language access for non-English speaking detainees.

The US government has faced criticism over the immigrant detention system. In September the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that immigrants who are imprisoned while fighting deportation cannot be held indefinitely [JURIST report] without a bail hearing and that the government must justify the need for the prolonged detention. Last year the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) [official website] released a report detailing investigations into immigrant detention centers [JURIST report]. The report expressed concern over increased use of detention by the US government, citing a doubling in detention of non-citizens by ICE. It criticized the US government for viewing detention as a necessity and not as an exception in its enforcement. The IACHR also found the average 30-day detentions troubling, arguing that it is likely to increase as backlogs of immigration cases increase. The number of immigration cases pending is expected to rise in light of the numerous state laws that have been enacted to address the issue of immigration.

This bill will ensure we do not inject chemicals into groundwater in a desperate pursuit for energy. It is a big moment. I hope other states will follow us. The science on fracking is uncertain at best. Let the other states be the guinea pigs. Let the Green Mountain State preserve its clean water, its lakes, its rivers and its quality of life.

Fracking has been a contentious issue both in the US and abroad. In January the New Jersey Legislature passed an amendment to a bill [JURIST report] that establishes a one-year ban on fracking. Legislators re-introduced the bill this year after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie conditionally vetoed legislation last June that would have permanently banned fracking in New Jersey [JURIST report]. In October the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] announced plans to develop standards [JURIST report] for wastewater discharge from fracking. Last June New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued the US government [JURIST report] for its alleged failure to study the risks of fracking. In May 2011 France's lower house approved a nationwide ban on fracking [JURIST report].