The ICTY began the retrial [JURIST report] of Haradinaj in August 2011. In preparation for the trial, witness and former KLA member Shefqet Kabashi was transferred to the ICTY to stand trial for contempt of court after refusing to answer questions during the initial proceeding. The ICTY says his testimony is critical to proving six counts of the indictment. In May 2008, ICTY Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz [official profile] filed an appeal against the acquittals [JURIST report]. Brammertz asked that the case be retried before a different chamber of the tribunal, arguing that prosecution was not allowed the to present enough witnesses. Haradinaj was charged with 37 counts of war crimes [JURIST report], including murder, persecution and rape, but was acquitted of all charges in April 2008 due to lack of evidence. Haradinaj was a senior commander in the KLA, the ethnic Albanian guerrilla force that opposed Slobodan Milosevic [JURIST news archive] during the 1998-1999 Kosovo war [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive].

American Trade Partnership, Montana Shooting Sports Association [advocacy websites] and Champion Painting, plaintiffs in this case, petitioned the US Supreme Court [JURIST report] to overturn the Montana court's decision in February. The Montana court ruled that the law did not violate the First Amendment and distinguished it from Citizens United because it still allowed for corporations to voice their political opinions in other ways, including lobbying and creating political action committees. The plaintiffs argued that upholding this law directly conflicted with the Citizens United ruling.

Uganda and many other African countries have legislation in place that criminalizes homosexuality. International human rights groups have continuously called on the Ugandan government to end this practice. In March the CCR filed [JURIST report] a lawsuit [complaint, PDF; case website] on behalf of the Ugandan rights group Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) [advocacy website] against Scott Lively, a US pastor with Abiding Truth Ministries [advocacy website], for enabling the anti-gay movement in Uganda in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts [official website]. A month earlier Uganda had reintroduced [JURIST report] legislation that would make certain homosexual activities punishable by death.

Earlier this month, the case of Bernard Munyagishari [case materials] was transferred [JURIST report] to the Rwandan authorities. 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 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.

In Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will rule on the following question: When water flows from one portion of a river that is navigable water of the United States, through a concrete channel or other engineered improvement in the river constructed for flood and stormwater control as part of a municipal separate
storm sewer system, into a lower portion of the same river, can there be a "discharge" from an "outfall" under the CWA, notwithstanding this court’s holding in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians [opinion] that transfer of water within a single body of water cannot constitute a "discharge" for purposes of the Act? The Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that there can be a "discharge."

In Vance v. Ball State University [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will decide whether the "supervisor" liability rule established by Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth [opinions] (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim's daily work, or (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to "hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline" their victim. In Faragher and Burlington Industries the Supreme Court held that under Title VII [text], an employer is vicariously liable for severe or pervasive workplace harassment by a supervisor of the victim. If the harasser was the victim's co-employee, however, the employer is not liable absent proof of negligence. Maetta Vance filed an employment discrimination claim against her employer, Ball State University, but the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed [opinion], holding that actionable harassment by a person whom the employer deemed a "supervisor" and who had the authority to direct and oversee the victim's daily work could not give rise to vicarious liability because the harasser did not also have the power to take formal employment actions against her.

In Comcast v. Behrend [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will determine whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis. The Supreme Court ruled last year in Wal-Mart v. Dukes [JURIST report] that the district court must engage in a "rigorous analysis" to ensure that the "party seeking class certification [can] affirmatively demonstrate his compliance" with Rule 23 [text]. However, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] in this case that the district court did not exceed its discretion in certifying the class action without considering several "merits arguments."

In Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will decide whether a federal district court is divested of Article III [text] jurisdiction over a party's challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark if the registrant promises not to assert its mark against the party’s then-existing commercial activities. The district court held that the covenant ended the case or controversy between the parties and dismissed defendant's counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF].

In Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will rule on whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims. Laura Symczyk sought relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) [materials] on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The district court dismissed Symczyk's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after defendants Genesis HealthCare Corporation and ElderCare Resources Corporation extended an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 [text] in full satisfaction of her alleged damages, fees and costs. The Third Circuit reversed [opinion, PDF].

In FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will decide: (1) whether the Georgia legislature, by vesting the local government entity with general corporate powers to acquire and lease out hospitals and other property, has "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed" a "state policy to displace competition" in the market for hospital services; and (2) whether such a state policy, even if clearly articulated, would be sufficient to validate the anticompetitive conduct in this case, given that the local government entity neither actively participated in negotiating the terms of the hospital sale nor has any practical means of overseeing the hospital's operation. Under the "state action doctrine," the federal antitrust laws do not apply to the anticompetitive conduct of certain subordinate public entities created by a state if the conduct is authorized as part of a "state policy to displace competition" that is "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed" in state law. The doctrine extends to private entities if the state policy is so articulated and the private conduct is "'actively supervised' by the State itself." "[T]he State may not," however, "validate ... anticompetitive conduct simply by declaring it to be lawful." In this case, a local government entity created by Georgia law, acting at the behest of a private actor and using the general corporate powers conferred on it by the state, acquired the only competitor of that private actor and immediately transferred control of the competitor to the private actor, creating a private monopoly. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that execution of the plan is protected by state-action immunity.

In Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether the 180-day statutory time limit for filing an appeal with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board from a final Medicare payment determination made by a fiscal intermediary, 42 USC § 1395oo(a)(3) [text], is subject to equitable tolling. The district court held that the statute does not allow for equitable tolling, but the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed [opinion, PDF].

In US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will rule on whether the Third Circuit correctly held [opinion, PDF] that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) [materials] Section 502(a)(3) authorizes courts to use equitable principles to rewrite contractual language and refuse to order participants to reimburse their plan for benefits paid, even where the plan's terms give it an absolute right to full reimbursement. There is a circuit split on this issue.

In Henderson v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will answer the following question: When the governing law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled in the defendant’s favor by the time of appeal, should an appellate court reviewing for plain error apply the time-of-appeal standard in Johnson v. United States [opinion], as the First, Second, Sixth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits do, or should the appellate court apply the Ninth Circuit's time-of-trial standard, which the DC Circuit and the panel below have
adopted? The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] in this case that the district court erred in giving Armarcion Henderson a longer sentence to promote his rehabilitation but that the error was not plain because the law was not clear at the time of trial.

The perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks killed 166 people. In February a New Delhi court confirmed charges [JURIST report] against US citizens and a Canadian citizen who have been accused of being involved in the 2008 attacks. The Indian National Investigation Agency (NIA) [official website] had accused the LeT and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) [SATP backgrounder] of using David Headley for gathering information on potential Indian terror attack sites. In March 2010 an Indian court heard final arguments in the trial of Kasab who had appealed [JURIST reports] his death sentences which was denied in October 2010. In 2009 a Pakistani court dismissed charges [JURIST report] against Islamic cleric Hafiz Muhammad Saeed [Global Jihad profile], the founder and leader of LeT, for lack of evidence.

Such mandatory penalties, by their nature, preclude a sentencer from taking account of an offender's age and the wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to it. Under these schemes, every juvenile will receive the same sentence as every other—the 17-year-old and the 14-year-old, the shooter and the accomplice, the child from a stable household and the child from a chaotic and abusive one. And still worse, each juvenile (including these two 14 year-olds) will receive the same sentence as the vast majority of adults committing similar homicide offenses—but really, ... a greater sentence than those adults will serve.

The court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] for the combined cases in March. One of the concerns advanced by the justices regarded the age limit upon which to base a ban against mandatory life sentences. In Miller, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "What's the distinction between 14 and 15? ... How are we to know where to draw those lines?" Later, Miller's attorney called for 18 to be the minimum age needed to impose a life sentence, and pointed out that most of the jurisdictions that have considered the issue in a legislative context have adopted an age 18 minimum for mandatory life sentences. He offered that those jurisdictions that permitted the imposition of mandatory life-sentences did so through a regime that transferred juveniles to the adult criminal justice system where they are exposed to mandatory life sentences, not because of the express will of the people or their legislators to impose mandatory life sentences on juvenile offenders. He indicated that roughly 80 percent of life sentences imposed on juveniles were a result of mandatory sentencing regimes. The Supreme Court agreed to hear [JURIST report] the cases in November.

The extradition came a month after the Tunisian government announced [JURIST report] that it was going to do so upon Libya's assurance that al-Mahmoudi would have a fair trial. Al-Mahmoudi was the head of government under Muammar Gaddafi [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive], who was killed in October by opposition forces. Libya's former prime minister has been under detention despite the Tunisian court dropping charges [JURIST report] against him in February, five months after he was arrested in southern Tunisia last September for illegally entering the country. In January, several human rights groups such as the Tunisian League for the Defense of Human Rights, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy websites] had called on Tunisia not to extradite [JURIST report] al-Mahmoudi to Libya.

The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito each entered dissenting opinions. In his dissent, Scalia said he would uphold the Arizona law in its entirety. He maintained that the Constitution has given states the authority to regulate immigration just as they have the authority to prosecute individuals for other crimes. He concluded that the Arizona laws do not interfere with federal regulations:

What this case comes down to, then, is whether the Arizona law conflicts with federal immigration law—whether it excludes those whom federal law would admit, or admits those whom federal law would exclude. It does not purport to do so. It applies only to aliens who neither possess a privilege to be present under federal law nor have been removed pursuant to the Federal Government's inherent authority.

BiH has been continuously prosecuting, convicting and sentencing those responsible for the killing during the massacre and even those who left the country are being brought back to face charges. Earlier this month, the country's war crimes court [official website] sentenced [text, PDF; JURIST report] four former Bosnian Serb soldiers [case materials, in Croatian] for their involvement in the 1995 massacre. In May, US resident Dejan Radojkovic was deported [JURIST report] to BiH to stand trial before the country's court for his actions as a police commander in Srebrenica during the 1995 massacre. He was arrested in 2009 after it was revealed that he did not disclose his involvement in the conflict and his appeal was rejected in February. He was the second to be deported after his commanding officer, Nedjo Ikonic, was deported in 2010 [JURIST report]. A day earlier, the war crimes court convicted [JURIST report] Dusko Jevic and Mendeljev Djuric for taking part in the killing of 1,000 Muslim men during the massacre after it found that the two former Bosnian Serb police officers were guilty of aiding and abetting genocide. They had been indicted on genocide charges in January 2010 after being arrested [JURIST reports] in October 2009. In January the court also upheld the conviction [JURIST reports] and 31-year sentence of Radomir Vukovic for his part in the 1995 massacre.

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. Tymoshenko has already been sentenced to seven years [JURIST report] in prison on corruption charges. Ukrainian prosecutors have also indicated that she will face charges [JURIST report] in the 1996 shooting of lawmaker Yevhen Shcherban and his family. She is currently appealing her conviction and seven-year prison sentence to the European Court of Human Rights (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.