Apple and Samsung have been embroiled in continuous patent litigation in courts around the world. In July a UK court ruled [JURIST report] that Samsung tablets do not infringe on Apple's design. Earlier in July a federal judge issued an injunction [JURIST report] against Samsung to stop the sale of its Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the US. A week earlier the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had rejected [Bloomberg report; CAFC notice] Samsung's appeal of the decision that remanded the case to the district court giving Apple another opportunity to ban Samsung's Galaxy products in the states after it 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. In June, the District Court of The Hague ruled [JURIST report] in favor of Samsung against Apple holding that Apple was liable for infringing upon one of the Korean company's four patents, a 3G patent.

Tension between Bahrain's government and protesters has been on the rise since government forces clashed with protesters last year during pro-democracy demonstrations. The Bahrain Information Affairs authority announced in July that they had brought charges against 15 police officers [JURIST report] for alleged "mistreatment of inmates in custody." In May Bahraini authorities arrested [JURIST report] prominent human rights activist Nabeel Rajab. Earlier in May, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] called for the immediate release [JURIST report] of the leader's of last year's anti-government protests, including Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja.

The death penalty remains a controversial issue across the US. In November the Connecticut Supreme Court [official website] upheld [JURIST report] the constitutionality of the state's death penalty law. Also in November the Ohio Supreme Court [official website] announced that it was forming a committee to ensure that the death penalty is not administered arbitrarily [JURIST report]. In March 2011 Illinois abolished capital punishment [JURIST report], concluding that there was no way to rid the capital punishment system of its discriminatory flaws. In 2009, New Mexico repealed its death penalty [JURIST report] on similar grounds to Illinois, asserting that the state could not possibly administer the death penalty impartially.

Numerous new laws regulating voters' rights have resulted in controversy. There are now more than 30 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, including 17 states that have passed laws that require a photo ID. Last month Chris Elmendorf of the University of California, Davis School of Law, wrote [JURIST op-ed] that recent statistical findings may contribute to courts declaring Section 5 of the VRA to be unconstitutional, while simultaneously strengthening the provisions of Section 2. Unlike the preclearance rules of Section 5, Section 2 nationally prohibits election laws that "result" in minority voters having "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." In May Elmendorf wrote [JURIST op-ed] that the "purpose" rather than the "effects" prong of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act may offer a better basis to challenge recent state regulations of the voting process. The DOJ relied on the "effects" prong of Section 5, which requires that a new law not have a retrogressive effect on racial minorities' political participation, in denying preclearance to Texas in March, and to South Carolina [JURIST report] in December.