In March the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the graphic cigarette label warnings are constitutional. The court decided unanimously that the portions of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) [HR 1256 text] designed to limit the tobacco industry's ability to advertise to children, including a ban on distributing clothing and goods with logos or brand names, as well as sponsorship of cultural, athletic and social events requiring cigarette packaging and advertisements, is a valid restriction of commercial speech.

In September Oklahoma amended [JURIST report] its complaint [text, PDF] following the US Supreme Court [official website] decision in June holding that the PPACA is constitutional [JURIST report], interpreting the government-imposed fees for individuals who fail to purchase health insurance as a tax rather than a criminal penalty. In maintaining the constitutional challenge, the new complaint added a challenge to the new IRS regulations that were put in place to carry out the law. Oklahoma argued that the Supreme Court's interpretation does not preempt a 2010 amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution [text] ensuring that Oklahoma citizens cannot be compelled by government to purchase health insurance. In July AG Pruitt filed a motion asking the federal court to lift a stay on the state's challenge [JURIST report] to the federal health care law.

We disagree with the court’s decision ... There is overwhelming evidence that the off-label use of abortion-inducing drugs leads to serious infections and death for many healthy, unsuspecting women. This is not OK. Our job is to protect the citizens of Oklahoma ...

Oklahoma has been at the center of controversy recently regarding reproductive rights [JURIST backgrounder]. The Oklahoma law restricting the use of abortion-inducing drugs was scheduled to take effect on November 1, 2011, but was temporarily blocked [JURIST report] in October. In April 2011 Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed into law [JURIST report] a bill prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. The law allows abortions past the 20-week mark only in certain extenuating circumstances where the mother faces death or serious injury. A doctor who performs an abortion in violation of the time limit would be subject to criminal prosecution for a felony, but the woman undergoing the procedure would not face a penalty. Last year an Oklahoma state judge extended a temporary injunction [JURIST report] blocking enforcement of HB 2780.

Every day Palestinian fishermen and farmers risk being shot at or detained by Israeli forces. Already since the agreement was reached, Israel has detained 13 fishermen, confiscated 4 fishing boats and sank another fishing boat. ... Such actions signal an Israeli intention to maintain its coercive style of occupation rather to explore whether implementing the ceasefire agreement might lead toward a more hopeful future.

The most recent conflict in Gaza has raised concern of possible human rights violations committed by Israel. Last month UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] pressured [JURIST report] Israel to avoid strikes on civilian structures in Gaza, expressing acute concern over the surge in the number of Palestinian civilian deaths in November. Also, in response to the rising civilian death toll and the dozens of Gazan schools and religious sites damaged by the bombings, UNICEF [official website] said that children in Gaza were suffering from severe psycho-social distress that refrain them from sleeping, going out in public and engaging in social activities. In August Amnesty International [advocacy website] called on Israel [JURIST report] to investigate its treatment of Palestinian detainees, alleging that two had been mistreated. In June the UN also urged Israel to end its blockade [JURIST report] of the Gaza Strip, alleging that it was violating international law.

Marijuana [JURIST news archive] was a hot-button issue in several states in the November 6 election [JURIST report]. In Washington voters approved an initiative [Initiative 502, PDF] to allow the possession and distribution of marijuana through a state-licensing system of marijuana growers, processors and stores, where adults can buy up to an ounce. The Colorado initiative [Amendment 64, PDF] actually introduces an amendment to the state constitution, allowing adults over 21 to possess up to an ounce and to privately grow up to six plants, although public use will be banned. In Oregon the Cannabis Tax Act Initiative [Measure 80, PDF] failed by approximately 55-to-45 percent [Examiner.com report] of the vote. Medical marijuana was legalized in Massachusetts for the first time as over 60 percent of voters approved Question 3 [Petition 11-11, PDF], an indirect initiated statute that will allow marijuana use by patients [Harvard Crimson report] with "debilitating medical conditions" and create 35 medical marijuana dispensaries. Conversely, the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act [Issue 5, PDF] was rejected by voters [AP report] in that state by approximately a 52-to-48 percent margin. The measure would have allowed doctors to issue a certificate to anyone with a "qualifying medical condition" to grow, process and use marijuana. Also on the ballot in Montana is a veto referendum regarding a 2011 revision [SB 423] of a 2004 law that established medical marijuana use in the state.

Same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder], and recently same-sex divorce, remains a controversial issue both in the US and around the globe. In November Nigeria approved [JURIST report] a bill that criminalizes same-sex marriage. That same month, Malawi changed position [JURIST report] on suspending its anti-homosexuality laws. Also in November, voters in Maryland, Maine and Washington [JURIST reports] legalized same-sex marriage. In the same election Minnesota voters struck down a ballot initiative that would have outlawed same-sex marriage in the state. In May, a Maryland high court approved [JURIST report] a same-sex divorce.

Governments must step up to close the governance gaps that have played such a large part in both facilitating and sustaining the current economic crisis, and business must cooperate with government efforts in this regard. Implementation of the Guiding Principles will be a big step in the right direction. ... The Guiding Principles recognize that responsible governance requires the adoption of adequate regulatory and policy frameworks to prevent and remedy business related human rights abuses. There needs to be a recognition also in the proceedings at this Forum that enhancing legal standards in relevant areas, be it at the national, regional or international level, may be necessary to ensure the full and effective implementation of the Guiding Principles. There is a particularly pressing case for such legal developments when it comes to business involvement in gross human rights abuse.

Business' effect on human rights is a growing concern in the international community. Last month a UN independent rights experts released a report detailing groups whose human rights are harmed [JURIST report] by transnational business activities. In July a UN rights body expressed concern [JURIST report] that the Rio+20 did not address businesses respecting human rights.

Verizon and other internet and mobile phone service providers have lodged several complaints against federal regulations in recent years. In January 2011 Verizon filed an appeal [JURIST report] in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging new net neutrality [JURIST news archive] rules adopted by the FCC that will allow the government to regulate Internet traffic. Verizon filed its appeal in January 2011 arguing that the net neutrality rules gave the FCC more authority than Congress intended to give it [JURIST report]. The FCC approved the net neutrality rules [JURIST report] in October 2009.

A separate challenge to SB 1172 resulted in a temporary injunction [JURIST report] by the same court earlier in the week. That challenge, brought by the Pacific Justice institute (PJI), resulted in a temporary injunction which will allow the plaintiffs in that case to continue SOCE after the law goes into effect. PJI filed the lawsuit challenging the bill just days after it was signed [JURIST reports] into law by California Governor Jerry Brown [official website] in October. SB 1172 was approved by the California State Assembly [JURIST report] in August and the California Senate [JURIST report] in May. Supporters of the bill, including groups such as Equality California [advocacy website] and the American Psychoanalytic Association [advocacy website] assert the reason for legislation is that homosexuality is not and should not be treated as a disease, and efforts to reverse homosexuality have proven to be detrimental to minors.

Sotoudeh is most widely known for representing political activists following the controversial 2009 presidential election [JURIST news archive] and has worked on several high-profile cases. She was the lawyer for Arash Rahmanipour, who was arrested for his role in the post-election protests on charges of mohareb, or being an enemy of God. Rahmanipour was executed [JURIST report] in January 2010. Sotoudeh also represented Isa Saharkhiz [Iran Press profile], a well-known press activist who was sentenced [JURIST report] to four years in prison in 2006 for publishing articles against the constitution and offending the state media. Iran continues to be scrutinized internationally for human rights violations. In March 2010, Pillay criticized the state of human rights in Iran while presenting her annual report. Pillay also condemned [JURIST report] Iran for the "arbitrary arrest" of, and "harsh sentences, including capital punishment" given to, individuals involved in protests following the presidential elections.

The facts that we have here, Your Honor, is that this is really an unprecedented case. This is unprecedented case in Medicare, that we have the agency that says it was doing one thing in a Federal Register document and actually did something different, that then spent years trying to avoid, as was laid out in the Southwest Consulting amicus brief, avoid having those facts come to—come to—come to the attention of the providers.

The court also heard arguments in Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council [transcript, PDF] on the Clean Water Act [materials]. In question is whether there is discharge or outfall [backgrounder] when transferring water from one point of a river to another through flood control mechanisms. All parties have agreed that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied the correct rule, but wanted the court to consider different rationales before remanding the case back to the Ninth Circuit. The issue was considered by Roderick Walston [official profile] in Supreme Court Should Not Unduly Expand the Scope of the CWA [JURIST comment].

There is thus no solid grounding in precedent for setting flooding apart from all other government intrusions on property. And the Government has presented no other persuasive reason to do so. Its primary argument is of the in for a penny, in for a pound genre: reversing the decision below, the Government worries, risks disruption of public works dedicated to flood control. "[E]very passing flood attributable to the government's operation of a flood control project, no matter how brief," the Government hypothesizes, might qualify as a compensable taking. To reject a categorical bar to temporary-flooding takings claims, however, is scarcely to credit all, or even many, such claims. It is of course incumbent on courts to weigh carefully the relevant factors and circumstances in each case, as instructed by our decisions.

The Arkansas Game & Fish Commission brought this action against the federal government, alleging that the US Army Corps of Engineers [official websites] caused increased flooding on one of its properties, which in turn damaged timber. The commission claims the damaging of timber on its property constituted a taking for which it deserved compensation, and the US Court of Federal Claims [official website] agreed and awarded damages of more than $5.6 million. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, overturned [opinion] that ruling, saying that the flooding did not constitute a taking because it was only temporary and did not permanently take over the land.