In Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International [cert. petition, PDF; docket] the court will consider the First Amendment [text] implications of the US Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 [22 USC § 7601 text], which bars funding to HIV/AIDS organizations that do not actively denounce prostitution [JURIST news archive]. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down those provisions [JURIST report], ruling that this unconstitutionally requires potential fund recipients to "espouse the government's views." Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from hearing this case.

In US v. Kebodeaux [cert. petition; docket] the court will review whether the federal government can compel a convicted sex offender to register with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA) [text] if they have completed their sentence before SORNA [JURIST news archive] was enacted. The court has ruled on SORNA several times, including that it does not apply retroactively [JURIST report] without guidance that the rule does apply to those offenders. The government is arguing that "Reynolds addressed the narrow question of when and how SORNA's particular requirements become effective as to persons who committed their offense prior to its enactment. It does not address Congress' power to prescribe registration requirements for those offenders." The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled [opinion text] that this provision violated Article I [text] of the Constitution.

In Sekhar v. US [docket] the court will consider if blackmailing an attorney who is also employed by the government is a violation of federal extortion law [18 USC § 875(d)], including the Hobbs Act [18 USC § 1951 (a)]. Giridhar Sekhar allegedly threatened to blackmail [Times Union report] the attorney of New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli to gain a government contract. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declared [opinion text] the attorney's "recommendation" as intangible property of the state of New York, and thus under the jurisdiction of federal extortion law.

In Hillman v. Maretta [cert. petition, PDF; docket] the court will consider if the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act of 1954 (FEGLIA) [text] preempts a state domestic relations equitable remedy which creates a cause of action against the recipient of Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) proceeds after they have been distributed. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled [opinion text] that "[b]ecause Congress intended for FEGLI benefits to be paid and to belong to a designated beneficiary, we conclude that FEGLIA preempts" the Virginia Code [§ 20-111.1(D) text] in question."

Finally, the court granted another question on federal preemption in American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles [cert. petition, PDF; docket]. The court will consider 49 USC § 14501(c)(1) [text], which provides that "a State [or] political subdivision ... may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier ... with respect to the transportation of property" and contains an unexpressed "market participant" exception. The court will look at if this exemption permits a municipal governmental entity to take action that conflicts with the express preemption clause, if it occurs in a market in which the municipal entity does not participate, and is unconnected with any interest in the efficient procurement of services. The court will also look at if a required concession agreement setting out various conditions a motor carrier must meet to serve a particular port imposes any requirements that are "related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier" for the purposes of preemption under Section 14501(c)(1). Finally, the court will determine whether permitting a municipal governmental entity to bar federally licensed motor carriers from access to a port operates as a partial suspension of the motor carriers' federal registration is in violation of Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines Inc. [opinion text].

Several EU member states face financial instability which may have detrimental effects on other member states. Last June, Ireland voters approved [JURIST report] the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance [text, PDF] aimed at improving fiscal discipline and promoting greater financial information disclosure between EU member states because of its current financial situation. The treaty was signed [JURIST report] by leaders from 25 EU member states in March. Only two countries, the UK and the Czech Republic, did not sign the measure. A year after the financial crisis of 2008, a European Council [official website] decided to create [JURIST report] a new European financial supervisory and monitoring system which seeks to balance the need of coordinating efforts on financial supervision, particularly in times of crisis, with the autonomy of each member nation over their own financial stability.

Chavez has been a controversial figure in the region. In July, Chavez announced [JURIST report] that the country would withdraw from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) [official website, in Spanish]. In a statement during a military ceremony, Chavez announced the withdrawal and criticized the regional court, saying it is not fit to be called a human rights court. The decision came just after the IACHR concluded that the prison conditions of a man convicted in multiple bombings were a violation of his human rights. In 2011, Chavez criticized the IACHR [JURIST report] for ruling in favor of presidential hopeful Leopoldo Lopez, allowing him to run for office despite a separate court ruling barring him from the election. In October 2011, the Supreme Court of Venezuela ruled [JURIST report] that presidential hopeful Leopoldo Lopez remained banned from running in next year's elections. Lopez, an opposition leader, was considered to be a threat to Chavez. As a result of corruption allegations, he was banned from public office through 2014 by the country's comptroller general.

The crisis in Mali has drawn a great deal of international scorn and scrutiny. The prime minister of Mali, Cheick Modibo Diarra, was forced to resign [JURIST report] in December on state television after junta soldiers arrested him for attempting to leave the country in light of the ongoing humanitarian crisis threatening the nation. In September Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] reported [JURIST report] that three armed Islamist groups in northern Mali are abusing the local population and recruiting child soldiers. Earlier that month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] condemned [JURIST report] human rights violations in Mali and called for international action to address the problems. Pillay noted that two militant Islamic groups are recruiting child soldiers, committing cruel punishments, violating basic human rights, committing sexual violence against women, and executing individuals. In August, officials from the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] were in Mali investigating [JURIST report] whether the same two Islamic groups had committed war crimes in Mali.

JPMorgan has faced numerous lawsuits regarding its business practices. Earlier this month, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) [official website] filed [JURIST report] a lawsuit against JPMorgan for the sale of $2.2 billion of faulty residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) to credit unions. In December the NCUA brought a suit [JURIST report] against JPMorgan for RMBS products sold by Bear Stearns, which was also subsequently purchased by JPMorgan. In July JPMorgan agreed to a $100 million settlement [JURIST report] in a suit brought by customers claiming unreasonable fees and a three percent increase on monthly minimum payments by credit card holders. In early June the firm was granted [JURIST report] permission to pay $44.6 million to resolve allegations of fraudulent bidding practices for state and local government investment securities at taxpayers' expense. The settlement followed JPMorgan's agreement [JURIST report] last July with the DOJ to pay $228 million to federal and state authorities. One month earlier JPMorgan again settled [JURIST report] at $153.6 million for fraud charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] for misleading investors during the housing crises.