The court also granted United States v. Windsor [docket; cert. petition, PDF], which examines the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive]. The case concerns Edith Windsor [ACLU backgrounder], a widow who had a legal same-sex marriage under Canadian and New York law but was denied spousal deduction for federal estate taxes when her wife died. The Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of DOMA under the Fifth Amendment [LII Cornell backgrounder]. Prior to her challenge, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it would no longer defend DOMA in courts, and in response, the US House of Representatives formed [JURIST reports] the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to defend the law. The court will also consider if BLAG had standing to intervene and if the DOJ's refusal to defend the law deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. The Windsor court held homosexuals to an intermediate scrutiny standard of review. The other petitions concerning same-sex marriage remain on hold.

The court granted three additional cases on Friday: Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals and Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey [dockets].

The request by Koh is the most recent event in a protracted patent litigation battle [JURIST op-ed] with Samsung that spans over four continents. In October a judge for the US International Trade Commission [official website] issued a preliminary ruling [JURIST report] that Samsung infringed four of Apple's patents relating to smartphone design and touchscreen technology. Also in October the Dutch Rechtbank's-Gravenhage [official website, in Dutch] court ruled that Samsung did not infringe [JURIST report] on an Apple software patent. In the same month a UK court also ruled that Samsung did not infringe [JURIST report] on an Apple design patent. Also in October, Apple defeated [JURIST report] patent infringement claims made by Samsung in Japan, overcoming Samsung's attempt to enjoin iPhone sales in the country. At the beginning of October, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an injunction [JURIST report] against Samsung that prevented it from selling its Galaxy Nexus product. Earlier in August, Apple won a $1.05 billion judgment [JURIST report] in the Northern District of California against Samsung involving other patent infringements.

Claims of human rights abuses are well established in Central and Latin America. In September UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay encouraged Honduras [JURIST report] to respond to increasing violence levied against lawyers. Also in September Pillay urged Venezuela [JURIST report] to remain active in furthering the American Convention on Human Rights. In May Brazil's Truth Commission was sworn in [JURIST report] to investigate abuses under Brazil's military dictatorship from 1964 to 1985. Also in May a Guatemala judge ordered a second trial to prosecute former dictator Efrain Rios Montt for ordering a 1982 massacre which killed 201 people. In March Pillay claimed Guatemala is responsible for human rights abuses from that nation's failure to abide [JURIST report] by the peace accord that ended the country's 36-year civil war.

Egypt has endured political turmoil since its revolution [JURIST backgrounder] last year. Last week Egyptian courts suspended work [JURIST report] to protest Morsi's recent decree, which, most significantly, removed judicial review of his actions. In October Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged Egypt to amend its proposed constitution [JURIST report] to comply with international treaties. In August a lawyer in Egypt filed an appeal challenging a declaration by Morsi granting himself complete legislative and executive power [JURIST reports]. In July, a few days after he was sworn in as president, Morsi issued a decree [JURIST reports] calling the Egyptian parliament back into session, despite a previous ruling by the Supreme Constitutional Court dissolving parliament after finding that one-third of its members were elected illegally. The court suspended Morsi's decree two days later, after which Morsi vowed that he would respect the ruling [JURIST reports]. Days before its dissolution, the Egyptian parliament elected a new constitutional council after lawmakers finally reached an agreement [JURIST reports] on the political composition of the council.

Under the laws of war, the expected military gain from an attack must outweigh the anticipated military gain. ... Disproportionate attacks are serious violations which Israel has an obligation to investigate. Victims of laws of war violations and their families should be promptly and adequately compensated. Anyone responsible for deliberately or recklessly committing a serious violation of the laws of war should be prosecuted for war crimes ... [and] Israel has not provided any information to support the claim that Mohamed al-Dalu was directly participating in hostilities.

The recent conflict in Gaza [JURIST op-ed] has raised concern of possible human rights violations committed by Israel. Earlier this week UN Special Rapporteur Richard Flak called on Israel [JURIST report] to fully implement and continue to support the recent conflict-ending ceasefire agreement with Palestinians in Gaza. In November UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay pressured [JURIST report] Israel to avoid strikes on civilian structures in Gaza. Pillay expressed acute concern over the surge in the number of Palestinian civilians killed and injured as a result of Israeli military action and suggested that allegations of war crimes would depend on the circumstances of each particular attack. Also last month Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi announced that peace talks were progressing toward a ceasefire in the recent escalation of violence in the area and reported that an agreement is close at hand. The ceasefire discussions between Morsi, the Quatari emir, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and former Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal came a day after Pillay urged [JURIST report] a cessation of the continued indiscriminate attacks and targeting of civilians.

Attempts to limit collective bargaining rights have been confronted with heavy opposition. In September the Michigan Supreme Court ordered [JURIST report] a union-backed measure to amend the state constitution to include a right to labor unionization and collective bargaining to appear on the November ballot. The measure was defeated 57-43 percent [AP report]. Wisconsin faced a challenge against its legislation which limited the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions. In July the Wisconsin Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] not to reopen a case challenging the state's Budget Repair Bill [text, PDF] because of a justice's refusal to recuse himself. Four votes were needed, but only three justices were in support of reopening the case. The court upheld [JURIST report] the bill in June 2011 thereby overruling the Dane County Circuit Court [official website] finding [JURIST report] a month earlier that legislators had violated the "open meetings" rule. The court ruled that the lower court had "invaded the legislature's constitutional powers." In March a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin [official website] ruled unconstitutional [JURIST report] certain provisions of the Budget Repair Bill reasoning that unions which supported Governor Scott Walker [official website] during his election were apparently given preferential treatment. Last November Ohio voters rejected [JURIST report] a bill which would have impacted Ohio's 400,000 public workers by limiting their ability to strike and collectively bargain for health insurance and pensions.

As part of its immigration power, the federal government has exclusive authority to enact and to enforce regulations concerning which noncitizens to admit, exclude, remove, or allow to remain in the U.S. The federal government also has exclusive authority over the terms and conditions of a noncitizen's stay in the United States. Further, the federal government has exclusive authority to classify noncitizens, which include determining the categories of noncitizens who are granted federal authorization to remain in the United States. In contrast, state governments have none of these powers.

Last month the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit [JURIST report] on behalf of New Jersey immigrants challenging mandatory detention procedures. The policy in question is 8 USC § 1226(c) [text], which mandates the detention of noncitizens during deportation proceedings, and such noncitizens are not entitled to a bond hearing, even if they pose no danger or flight risk. In September the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied [JURIST report] a request for a new injunction against a controversial provision of Arizona's immigration law [SB 1070, PDF] requiring law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of persons they stop or arrest if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the US illegally.