In this case, there are strong reasons for withholding the deference that Auer generally requires. Petitioners invoke the DOL's interpretation of ambiguous regulations to impose potentially massive liability on respondent for conduct that occurred well before that interpretation was announced. To defer to the agency's interpretation in this circumstance would seriously undermine the principle that agencies should provide regulated parties "fair warning of the conduct [a regulation] prohibits or requires."

The court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in April. The Solicitor General argued for the definition of sales presented in their amicus brief [text, PDF], which the court noted differed from the arguments they made to the Ninth Circuit. Justice Anthony Kennedy particularly criticized the DOL's updates of its regulations: "[I]t's gone on for 70 years, and you're—instead of doing a regulation, amended regulation, as Justice Breyer indicates, you're filing amicus briefs quietly in different—different courts. It seems to me that's not nearly as fair or straightforward or as candid as—as an agency ought to be." Last summer, the court ruled on another aspect of FLSA's wording [JURIST report]: that the language "filed any complaint" refers to both oral and written complaints.

Berlusconi has been a defendant in nearly 50 cases. In February, a Milan court dismissed [JURIST report] corruption charges against Berlusconi. He had been accused of bribing his British tax lawyer, David Mills, to lie in two trials relating to his holding company Fininvest in the 1990s. During the same month, the prosecution of Rome, La Procura di Roma, had asked [JURIST report] the Tribunale Ordinario di Roma [official website, in Italian] to place the former PM on trial for tax evasion. He also faces trial on wiretap charges by publishing the transcript of a tapped phone conversation, trial on fraud charges and trial on abuse of power and underage prostitution charges [JURIST reports].

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in December. In support of Illinois' position, the US government argued that there can be no Confrontation Clause issue, because the analyst who testified had to explain her lack of hands-on experience with the test. Although an analyst from the lab would make the state's case stronger, as the witness they presented does not have firsthand experience with the lab or its procedures, the Confrontation Clause does not obligate the state to present the strongest case possible. The court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in the case in June of last year.

Mladic's trial was postponed indefinitely [JURIST report] in May due to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct related to evidence disclosure. Judge Alphons Orie adjourned the trial to allow the defense lawyers more time to consider the evidence the prosecution will present. Earlier that month, chief prosecutor of the ICTY had told reporters [JURIST report] that he believes Mladic is mentally and physically fit to stand. The ICTY had ordered [JURIST report] a medical examination for Mladic after he missed a hearing before the court a week earlier. His first appearance [JURIST report] before the ICTY was in June of last year when he contested charges against him while simultaneously asking for more time to review them. A day after, during his second appearance [JURIST report], Mladic refused to enter a plea without lawyers of his choice representing him and he was removed from the court for disrupting the proceedings.

If the Government could be trusted to fulfill its promise to pay only when more pressing fiscal needs did not arise, would-be contractors would bargain warily—if at all—and only at a premium large enough to account for the risk of nonpayment. In short, contracting would become more cumbersome and expensive for the Government, and willing partners more scarce.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in April. The respondents, several American Indian tribes, argued that the government's distribution of funds was arbitrary and contrary to the Ferris doctrine: an 1892 Court of Claims opinion that sets forth "A contractor who is one of several persons to be paid out of an appropriation is not chargeable with knowledge of its administration, nor can his legal rights be affected or impaired by its maladministration or by its diversion, whether legal or illegal, to other objects." The doctrine was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2005 through Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt [JURIST report], which held the original presumption that under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, tribes may undertake and be reimbursed for programs that would otherwise be provided by the government. The court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in the case earlier this year in January.

In addition to the gacaca courts, the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website] is responsible for higher-level cases related to the 1994 genocide. It has begun to cooperate with the country's judicial system by transferring genocide cases to the national courts. Earlier this month, the ICTR transferred [JURIST report] the case of Bernard Munyagishari [materials] who had been charged with conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, complicity in genocide, murder and rape, to the authorities of the Republic of Rwanda. It was the fifth case that was transferred to Rwandan national courts. In May, the case of Ladislas Ntaganzwa [case materials] was transferred [JURIST report] to the Rwandan national court system. Ntaganzwa, a former mayor of Nyakizu commune in Butare, had been charged with with conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, complicity in genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the Geneva Conventions. Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi [case materials], a former Rwandan pastor and a genocide suspect, was the first to be transferred [JURIST report] from the ICTR to the national court. Uwinkindi appealed to the decision to transfer his case but it was rejected [JURIST reports] by the ICTR in December. He has been charged in 2001 with genocide and crimes against humanity. The other two transferred cases are against Fulgence Kayishema [case materials; JURIST report], a former police inspector, and Charles Sikubwabo [case materials], former Bourgmestre of Gishyita, Kibuye Prefecture. Both suspects remain at large.

The court also invited the Solicitor General to file briefs stating the view of the US government in two cases: Hillman v. Maretta [docket; cert. petition], a case of whether a state law directing insurance funds to be delivered to a particular person is preempted by a federal law allowing the funds to be delivered to someone else, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. v. Fossen [docket; cert petition], a case of whether a federal insurance law can be enforced through state-enacted remedies.

He is the eighth high-profile leader who has been indicted for the crimes committed during the war. Last week, the ICTB indicted [JURIST report] former Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) leader Abdul Alim on 17 counts of crimes against humanity, Bangladesh's national news agency reported. In May, the ICTB indicted [JURIST report] Matiur Rahman Nizami, the chief of the JI, and Abdul Quader Molla, Nizami's deputy, for alleged human rights atrocities committed during the war. During the same month, Ghulam Azam, former head of the JI, was indicted [JURIST report] by the ICTB for similar charges. He had been taken into custody [JURIST report] in January after his request for bail was denied.

The bill was approved [JURIST report] by the Philippines Congress earlier this month. Other Philippines anti-terrorism laws have recently come under scrutiny. The constitutionality of the Human Security Act (HSA) [text, PDF] which authorizes the 72-hour detention of suspects without charge and allows for surveillance, wiretapping and seizure of assets was upheld [JURIST report] by the Supreme Court of the Philippines [official website] in October of last year. Two months earlier, Aquino urged [JURIST report] lawmakers to make the law more available for authorities to utilize. It was heavily criticized when it first went in effect [JURIST report] in 2007.

Eritrea officially separated from Ethiopia and became a recognized nation in 1993 after the Eritrean people voted for independence in a referendum overseen by the UN. The countries continued to dispute the demarcation between them, resulting in a two-year border war from 1998 to 2000 resulting in around 80,000 casualties. The conflict was brought to an end through UN intervention. In 2009, the specially-established Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission [official backgrounder] awarded damages [JURIST report] that resulted from the border war. The Permanent Court of Arbitration [official website] awarded USD $174,036,520 to Ethiopia and $161,455,000 to Eritrea as well as an additional $2,065,865 to individual Eritrean claimants. In the same year, Eritrea was added [JURIST report] as one of the countries with the worst human trafficking records in the Trafficking in Persons Report 2009 [materials; introduction, PDF] by the US Department of State [official website].

In the QTA, Congress made a judgment about how far to allow quiet title suits—to a point, but no further. ... Perhaps Congress would—perhaps Congress should—make the identical judgment for the full range of lawsuits pertaining to the Government's ownership of land. But that is not our call. ... As the matter stands, Congress has not assimilated to quiet title actions all other suits challenging the Government's ownership of property. And so when a plaintiff like Patchak brings a suit like this one, it falls within the APA's general waiver of sovereign immunity.

The court upheld the decision [text] of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, holding that the QTA sovereign immunity exceptions do not apply to cases other than those disputing land titles. The court's decision allows the suit to proceed, and the case was remanded to the lower court to be litigated on the merits.

Seselj constantly argued that the ICTY is biased and political violating his right to fair trial. In March, he argued that the tribunal is biased and does not have jurisdiction over his case, a week after the prosecution asked the court [JURIST reports] for a 28-year prison sentence against him. In January, Seselj sued [JURIST report] the ICTY for $2.6 million in damages due to alleged unreasonable delays in his trial, alleging that the tribunal failed to give him materials in Serbian; denied him communication with family members, doctors and legal counsel; delayed his trial interminably; and refused him a right to his own, independent counsel.

All violations of the human rights of the Syrian people at the hands of all parties to the conflict must end. The Government of Syria should immediately cease the use of heavy armaments and shelling of populated areas, as such actions amount to crimes against humanity and possible war crimes. I also urge the international community to overcome divisions and work to end the violence and human rights violations to which the people of Syria have been subjected. We must also make our utmost possible efforts to ensure accountability for all perpetrators, including those who have attacked UN observers in Syria.

The UN Special Rapporteurs on summary executions and torture on Friday condemned [JURIST report] the violence against peaceful protesters, journalists and human rights defenders in Syria. Despite the government's promise of reform to end the prevalent violence in the country, the experts discovered that corruption, injustice and discrimination are still placing civilians at risk. Also on Friday, Human Rights Watch reported that Syrian forces are sexually abusing [JURIST report] men, women and children who have been detained during the ongoing conflict. Syria has been unsuccessful in dealing with the unrest plaguing the country and has drawn international criticism. On Thursday, an Amnesty International report revealed that Syrian armed forces are continuing to engage in a pattern of abuse and deliberate killing of civilians [JURIST report]. Earlier this month, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ivan Simonovic had voiced his concern [JURIST report] that the violence in Syria amounts to crimes against humanity. He addressed the General Assembly on behalf of Pillay to urge the international community to convince both the Syrian government and the armed forces to cease their violence and ongoing human rights violations.

Despite the success of a peaceful presidential election on Saturday and Sunday, Egypt has faced continued political turmoil in the wake of last year's overthrow of former president Hosni Mubarak. Last week the Supreme Constitutional Court [official website] of Egypt dissolved [JURIST report] the country's Parliament [official website] because it found that one-third of its members were elected illegally. Thus, the court held that because some of the members of the parliament were elected illegally, the entire body was invalid. While the parliament was dissolved, the military was given more powers. A day earlier the country's Ministry of Justice issued a decree [JURIST report] restoring broad arrest powers to the Egyptian military to arrest civilians for non-military offenses. Also last week, a new panel consisting of 100 members who are tasked with drafting the country's constitution was elected after the formation of the first one deemed unconstitutional [JURIST reports].

Earlier this month, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ended its investigation [JURIST report] into the health care conditions of Tymoshenko, finding that the Ukrainian government provided her with adequate care. She previously alleged that prison guards were beating her [press release, in Ukrainian], and refused to be treated [JURIST report] by prison doctors for back problems, believing they were under the direction of political rival President Viktor Yanukovych. Last month her trial was postponed for the second time [BBC report] at the request of the prosecution after she was again unable to attend due to health issues. The trial was first postponed in April [JURIST report] due to concerns about Tymoshenko's health. Earlier that month Tymoshenko was returned to prison after being sent to a clinic for medical treatment. She is currently appealing a conviction and seven-year prison sentence to the ECHR and has discontinued all appeals [JURIST report] in the Ukraine on that issue. Although her previous conviction was on charges of corruption and abuse of power during her time as prime minister, her current trial is based on allegations of hiding $165 million of corporate revenue and accumulating $5.8 million through tax fraud while the head of the UESU.