In May, the CAFC partially reversed [JURIST report] the district court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction for Apple against Samsung. Apple's request for a temporary injunction was denied [JURIST report] by the district court in December. Apple filed a suit [JURIST report] against Samsung in April of last year alleging that Samsung committed ten patent infringements, two trademark violations and two trade dress violations by copying iPhone and iPad technology in making its "Galaxy" products.

The settlement followed JPMorgan's agreement of last July to pay a total of $228 million to federal and state authorities. It agreed [JURIST report] to pay $51.2 million to the affected municipalities, and its affiliates agreed to pay $177 million to settle parallel charges from other federal and state authorities including 25 states' attorneys general, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board [official websites]. JPMorgan was accused of having used "fraudulent practices, misrepresentations, and omissions affected the prices of the reinvestment instruments, deprived the municipalities of a conclusive presumption that their reinvestment instruments were purchased at fair market value, and/or jeopardized the tax-exempt status of the underlying securities, thereby injuring numerous Municipalities." A month earlier JPMorgan reached [JURIST report] a $153.6 million settlement for fraud charges brought by the SEC for misleading investors during the housing crises.

The Ninth Circuit struck down Proposition 8 in February, ruling that the voter-approved [JURIST report] constitutional amendment violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. The Ninth Circuit initially heard arguments on Proposition 8's constitutionality in December 2010, but then asked the California Supreme Court [JURIST reports] to rule on whether defendants had standing to appeal. The high court ruled in November that they did have standing [JURIST report].

The controversial bill was preliminary approved [JURIST report] in May by State Duma by a vote of 236-207 on the first reading. Putin has supported the new bill. Russia has been criticized for violating citizens' right to free expression. Earlier this month prominent Russian gay rights activist Nikolai Alekeyev, who was arrested in April, became the first to be convicted under a St. Petersburg city ordinance that prohibits the spreading "homosexual propaganda" to minors.

Hamdan was originally convicted [JURIST report] in August 2008 on charges [charge sheet, PDF], which stemmed from his employment as Bin Laden's driver, and sentenced to 66 months of imprisonment, but given credit for 60 months he had already spent in US custody. In November 2008, Hamdan was released [JURIST report] to his native country Yemen to serve the last month of his prison sentence and is now living freely in Yemen. His release alleviated concerns that arose when government lawyers said he could be held indefinitely [JURIST report].

There is an ongoing debate over the prevalence of voter fraud. Supporters of the controversial voter ID laws [JURIST news archive] often argue that such laws are necessary to prevent the alleged prevalence of voter fraud. However, the Brennan Center for Justice [advocacy website] has argued [report, PDF] that such laws have an adverse effect on qualified voters while not effectively solving the problem. Other civil rights groups have challenged the new laws that are now in 32 states [NCSL backgrounder]. In May, the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN) [advocacy website] filed a petition [JURIST report] to challenge the proposed ballot initiative that would require citizens to present photo identification in order to vote. During the same month, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell [official website] signed [JURIST report] a bill that would require citizens to show one form of acceptable identification to vote. Pennsylvania's voter ID law was challenged [JURIST report] earlier in May by a coalition of civil rights groups on behalf of citizens who lack valid photo ID.

The issue of which court is going to try Saif al-Islam has been in dispute since he was captured [JURIST report] by Libyan rebel forces in November. In April ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] stated that the maximum penalty for Saif al-Islam in the ICC would be life in prison, but if convicted in a national court he could face the death penalty [JURIST report]. Earlier that month Ocampo asked the ICC to report Libya to the UN Security Council [official website] for failing to turn over Saif al-Islam. Libya expressly denied [JURIST report] the ICC's request for such action and stated that Saif al-Islam will face trial within the country. In February 2011 the UN Security Council voted unanimously to refer the matter in Libya to the ICC prosecutor [JURIST report]. The ICC claimed jurisdiction over Saif al-Islam despite its announcement in November that it may allow Libya to conduct the trial [JURIST report]

Human Rights Watch's research in the Marange area indicates that while human rights violations by the Zimbabwean military in the diamond fields are not as severe as they were in 2008, abuses persist. There are significant concerns about the conduct of police and private security forces employed by companies operating in the area, and the failure of the authorities to hold to account members of the military, police and private security companies responsible for serious abuses.

Zimbabwe has faced criticism in the past for its inability to address human rights violations in diamond fields. In August 2010, the US-based Rapaport Diamond Trading Network [corporate website] reiterated its stance against the sale of Zimbabwe diamonds [JURIST report] associated with human rights violations. In a letter to their members, Rapaport stated they would expel members who knowingly traded the tainted diamonds. Rapaport's letter was released a month after KP approved the sale of the diamonds [JURIST report] from the Marange mines after reaching an agreement with the Zimbabwean government. Under the agreement, the KP allowed Zimbabwe to sell a portion of its estimated USD $1.7 billion worth of mined diamonds before September of that year, and the Zimbabwean government allowed KP experts to enter the country to certify that the diamond mines meet international standards. In 2009, rights groups urged KP to suspend [JURIST report] Zimbabwe's international diamond trade due to the human rights violations allegedly committed by the Zimbabwean army against civilians and illegal workers in the Marange diamond fields.

In May, Black was released [JURIST report] from federal prison in Florida. Last June, he was ordered to return to prison [JURIST report] for an additional 13 months after he served his sentence of 42 months because the sentencing guidelines mandated he serve his full sentence. He had been released on bond in 2010 by after the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] granted Black's request for bail following a Supreme Court ruling [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] in Black v. United States [Cornell LII backgrounder]. The Court of Appeals vacated Black's two "honest service"-based convictions after Supreme Court instructed the circuit court to review the jury instructions given at trial concerning the "honest services" doctrine [18 USC § 1346 text]. Black was accused in 2007 of diverting more than $80 million from Hollinger International and its shareholders [JURIST report] during Hollinger's $2.1 billion sale of several hundred Canadian newspapers and faced 17 counts of fraud, obstruction of justice, racketeering and tax evasion.

For a taxpayer to have standing to challenge a government expenditure as violating the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court has required that the challenged action be "congressional action under the taxing and spending clause." Recently, the Court limited the reach of this holding to suits against "specific congressional enactment[s]," expressly excluding "discretionary Executive Branch expenditures" from taxpayer challenges in federal court.

The challenge was initially brought in August 2010 by Sherman, who has said on his website [advocacy website] that the decision of the District Court was "bizarre" and "preposterous." In October, the Seventh Circuit rejected [JURIST report] Sherman's challenge to the constitutionality of an Illinois statute that mandates a daily moment of silence in public schools. The court reversed an April 2009 ruling [JURIST report] that the Illinois Reflection and Silent Prayer Act [text] is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion in public schools. The appellate court instead found that the statute had a secular legislative purpose that neither advanced nor inhibited religion.

The ICC had faced difficulties in enforcing its arrest warrant against al-Bashir mainly because of the lack of support by neighbor states that assist the president or refuse to arrest him. In May, the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee [official website] approved [JURIST report] legislation that would suspend aid to countries that host al-Bashir. The legislation has to be voted on by the full House of Representatives and then reconciled with a separate Senate version. In November, the Kenyan High Court ruled [JURIST report] that al-Bashir has to be arrest when he visit the country again. After al-Bashir's second visit [JURIST report], the court held that the country, as a signatory of the ICC Rome Statute, is obliged to enforce ICC's arrest warrant. A month earlier, the ICC demanded [JURIST report] an explanation for the Republic of Malawi's failure to arrest the Sudanese president.

Pro-western Ukrainians are wary of increased Russian influence in the country. In April 2010 Ukrainian prosecutors considered filing criminal charges after a Parliament session in which lawmakers hurled eggs and smoke bombs and engaged in physical violence in an attempt to prevent a vote [JURIST report] on a Russian treaty. The chaos erupted as lawmakers voted to approved a treaty that extended Russia's lease on a naval base in the Ukrainian Sevastopol port on the Black Sea until 2042 in exchange for discounted Russian gas. The agreement was strongly opposed by pro-Western lawmakers who see Russian influence as reminiscent of Soviet occupation. The treaty came soon after the election [JURIST report] of President Viktor Yanukovych [official website, in Ukrainian], who took office in February of that year. Yanukovych replaced Viktor Yushchenko [JURIST news archive], who had sought to cut ties with Russia and strengthen relationships with Western Europe. Yushchenko opposed the extension of Russia's Black Sea lease.

The Arizona immigration law currently faces another challenge that is being heard by the US Supreme Court [official website]. In Arizona v. United States [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] the federal government has argued that the immigration law is preempted by federal law. The court heard final oral arguments [JURIST report] for the case in late April. The key issue in this case is whether certain provisions of the Arizona law are in areas reserved by the Constitution for federal regulation. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in December after Arizona asked the high court to weigh in [JURIST reports] on the issue. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction last April before the law ever took effect, and the US Department of Justice [official website] urged the Supreme Court not to hear the appeal [JURIST report].

Due to health problems associated with their products, tobacco companies are facing various laws that interfere with their distribution and marketing efforts around the world. In the US, tobacco companies are facing regulations that will compel them to place prescribed warning labels on their packages. In April, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] heard [JURIST report] oral arguments over the constitutionality of a new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] regulation requiring cigarette packaging and advertisements to display more prominent graphic health warning labels. A month earlier a judge in the same court had held [JURIST report] that the regulation was unconstitutional because it violated tobacco companies' First Amendment rights. In November, Philip Morris Asia Ltd. (PMA) filed a suit against the Australian government that passed [JURIST reports] new regulations requiring tobacco companies to sell its products in a generic, olive green packages without branding or logos.

Kamaruzzaman is the most recent leader to be arrested and charged with war crimes for his participation in atrocities committed during the 1971 war. Last month Ghulam Azam, former head of the JI party, along with chief Matiur Rahman Nizami and deputy Abdul Quader Molla were indicted [JURIST report] by the ICTB. The tribunal ordered Azam's arrest [JURIST report] in January. In November the ICTB began its first trial [JURIST report] in the case against Delwar Hossain Sayedee, a former member of Parliament in the National Assembly of Bangladesh [official website, in Bengali] and one of the former leaders of JI. Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] last year sent a letter to the Bangladesh government praising its efforts through the ICTB to prosecute war crimes but urged the government to ensure that the trials are carried out in accordance with international human rights expectations [JURIST report].

Libyan courts are set to try more high-profile cases concerning Gaddafi supporters. Prosecutor-General Abdul Azizi al-Hassadi told reporters last week that Libya will begin the prosecution of senior officials [JURIST report] who served under Gaddafi in June. The Prosecutor-General's announcement came after the Libyan government formally challenged [JURIST report] the right of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to try Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Muammar Gaddafi's son. The issue of which court is going to try Saif al-Islam has been in dispute since he was captured [JURIST report] by Libyan rebel forces in November. In April ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo stated that the maximum penalty for Saif al-Islam in the ICC would be life in prison, but if convicted in a national court he could face the death penalty [JURIST report].