Immigration law [JURIST backgrounder] has been a controversial issue over the past several years, and the announcement of the new rule on Wednesday is the latest effort by the Obama administration to affect immigration policy through executive directives. In October 2012 Mississippi joined [JURIST report] a lawsuit challenging a policy directive [DHS memorandum, PDF; JURIST report] announced by the Obama administration that instructs immigration enforcement agencies not to enforce deportation laws against certain young people who were brought to the US as children but never became citizens. Shortly after the Obama administration announced this rule, Iowa Congressman Steve King [official website] issued a statement [JURIST report] indicating his plans to sue the administration in order to delay implementation of the policy, and Arizona Congressman Ben Quayle introduced a bill [JURIST report] to block enforcement of the policy. Additionally, a number of states have passed restrictive immigration laws [JURIST backgrounder] over the past several years, which give local authorities more autonomy to regulate immigration. However many of these laws have been partially blocked by federal courts, including those in Arizona, Alabama and Georgia [JURIST reports].

During his 2008 campaign for the presidency, Obama pledged to close Guantanamo Bay, and during his second day in office, he issued an executive order [text; JURIST report] directing the prison to be closed. However, in the face of congressional opposition [JURIST report], the Obama administration missed its self-imposed deadline to close the military prison, and, following the 2010 mid-term election, congress effectively halted [JURIST backgrounder] plans to close the facility. Thursday's signing of the NDAA will further hinder Obama's ability to close Guantanamo Bay, despite a recent report [text, PDF; JURIST report] from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) [official website] that Guantanamo detainees could be safely absorbed by prisons throughout the US. Forum contributor Jonathan Hafetz argues that Obama bears responsibility [JURIST op-ed] for the political missteps that prevented Guantanamo from closing and criticizes him for embracing the "larger detention system that Guantanamo embodies." Conversely, Forum contributor David Frakt agrees that the Obama administration is partially responsible, but believes congress is largely to blame [JURIST op-ed] for passing a "series of increasingly stringent spending restrictions which have made it virtually impossible to transfer most detainees out of Guantanamo."

The decision comes only days after a UN independent expert expressed concern [JURIST report] about the increasing threats and attacks against judges and lawyers who fight for the independence of the judiciary. Gabriela Knaul [official profile] called for the independence of the judiciary and criticized the parliament for exercising control over judicial matters, which violates the principle of separation of powers, due process and international standards. In mid-December Bandaranayake appealed [JURIST report] her conviction arguing that she was not given adequate opportunity to present her defense. She asked to declare the committee's findings illegal and order parliament to suspend any further proceedings against her, pending appeal. She was found guilty [JURIST report] of three out of five charges of misconduct by the parliamentary committee earlier that month. More than 300 of Sri Lanka's judges had met in the capital Colombo to call for impartiality [JURIST report] in the impeachment proceedings. In November the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers urged [JURIST report] Sri Lanka to take appropriate measures to protect the country's judiciary from threats, intimidation and physical attacks. Earlier last month hundreds of Sri Lankan lawyers and citizens protested [JURIST report] on the street in Colombo calling the government to halt to the impeachment proceedings.

However, this Court is constrained by law, and under the law, I can only conclude that the Government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and so cannot be compelled by this court of law to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States ... I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret. But under the law as I understand it to have developed, the Government's motion for summary judgment must be granted, and the cross-motions by the ACLU and the Times denied ...

The court ruling came less than a month after the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed [JURIST report] a motion to dismiss [text, PDF] a separate lawsuit challenging drone strikes. Senior al Qaeda leader and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive] was killed by drone strike [JURIST report] last September along with another American, Samir Khan. Two weeks later drone strikes killed 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, Anwar Al-Awlaki's son. Awlaki, a dual US-Yemeni citizen, had been approved for targeting killing by the Obama administration, an action that was challenged based on Awlaki's US citizenship. In December 2010 a judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST reports] challenging the Obama administration's ability to conduct "targeted killings" in al-Awlaki's case. Judge John Bates found that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case, filed by the ACLU and the CCR on behalf of Awlaki's father, dismissing it on procedural grounds and noting that important questions remain. Bates heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in November 2010 on the same day Awlaki called for jihadist attacks on US citizens in a video posted on extremist websites. Earlier that month Yemeni prosecutors charged [JURIST report] Awlaki with incitement to kill foreigners, and he was later sentenced in absentia to 10 years in prison.