Federal News and Releases

Recalling the McCarthy era, a New York Times editorial asks, "Are You or Have You Ever Been a Lawyer?" It warns that recent attacks on government lawyers who once represented Guantanamo detainees weaken our constitutional rights. For more, see Gavel Grab.

"In the McCarthy era, demagogues on the right smeared loyal Americans as disloyal and charged that the government was being undermined from within. In this era, demagogues on the right are smearing loyal Americans as disloyal and charging that the government is being undermined from within. These voices — often heard on Fox News — are going after Justice Department lawyers who represented Guantánamo detainees when they were in private practice. It is not nearly enough to say that these lawyers did nothing wrong. In fact, they upheld the highest standards of their profession and advanced the cause of democratic justice. The Justice Department is right to stand up to this ugly bullying."

"[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [official website] on Friday denied [decision, PDF] a motion to dismiss a torture suit brought against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld [JURIST news archive] by two American citizens captured while working in Iraq. Judge Wayne Andersen dismissed two other counts but allowed the count alleging the plaintiffs were subject to cruel and degrading treatment methods during their detention. The plaintiffs, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, were working for a private Iraqi security firm called Shield Group Security. There they witnessed suspicious activity that they reported to US authorities, but they were later arrested by US forces and detained without representation. The plaintiffs brought a cause of action recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics [opinion text] against Rumsfeld, claiming that he was personally responsible for the alleged unconstitutional treatment they faced while in detention."

"In a city where the phrase "bipartisan initiative" is becoming an oxymoron, the urgency of containing the damage the Supreme Court could do to our electoral system creates an opportunity for a rare convergence of interest and principle. At issue is the court's astonishingly naive decision in January that allows unlimited corporate spending to influence elections. Its 5 to 4 ruling in the Citizens United case was a shocking instance of judicial overreach and reflected an utter indifference to how politics works. Liberals and Democrats are already mobilizing to fight against Citizens United because they fear the impact of unconstrained corporate activity on elections and legislation."

"Reporting from Washington - Proposed legislation to block foreign companies from contributing money to U.S. elections could end up affecting well-known companies such as Chrysler, Anheuser-Busch and Citgo, according to legal experts and company representatives. The legislation is a reaction from key House and Senate Democrats to a Supreme Court decision in January that struck down a portion of the nation's campaign funding laws, allowing corporations to freely contribute to political campaigns. The high court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission seemed to open the way for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations to also contribute to campaigns."

"[JURIST] US lawmakers introduced a bill [text, PDF] Thursday that would require the military interrogation and trial of those taken into US custody who are suspected of links to terrorism. The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 was introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) [official websites] and would require that all people detained by US authorities, both domestically and internationally, who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the US or its coalition partners or of providing material support for those who do, would be placed in military custody for interrogation and a final status determination made by the president, attorney general, and defense secretary. Under the bill, before a final status determination is made, the suspect cannot be Mirandized or 'otherwise ... informed of any rights that the individual may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda v. Arizona.'"

"President Obama's advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City. The president's advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States."

"Reacting promptly to the Supreme Court‚s return of a major detainee case to lower courts for a new look, lawyers for seven Guantanamo Bay detainees on Thursday urged the D.C. Circuit Court to pass the case back to a federal District judge to develop the facts on the prisoners‚ chances for resettlement abroad. In a motion to remand, attorneys for the Chinese Muslim Uighurs said the case should not be finally resolved until all of the facts are in. (The case in the Circuit Court is Kiyemba, et al., v. Obama, et al., lead docket number 08-5424.) On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered the Circuit Cout to decide what lower courts should do next about the seven Uighurs who have had offers to be transferred out of Guantanamo, but still remain there sixteen months after a federal judge found them eligible for release. (The Justices had agreed to rule on the case this Term, but opted to return the case to lower courts after the facts had changed.)"

"Americans oppose the Court’s recent decision in Citizens United by a margin of nearly two to one (sixty-four to twenty-seven percent), according to a poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and McKinnon Media on behalf of Common Cause, Change Congress, and the Public Campaign Action Fund. Another poll, by ABC News and the Washington Post, recently found that eighty percent of Americans oppose the Citizens ruling, with sixty-five percent “strongly” opposing it. Both polls also found that a broad majority of voters favor some type of congressional response to the decision. These findings have been widely reported, with some proponents of reform relying on them to call for a congressional response to the Citizens decision."

Criticism is rising over the prosecution in federal courts of illegal immigrants with no significant crime records. Read more in Gavel Grab.

"Suppose your boss held a meeting at work and told you and your fellow employees, "We need you to vote for John McCain for President because Barack Obama isn't good for us."

1) Say, "What do you mean by 'us'?"

2) Snap to attention, salute smartly, and shout, "Yes Boss!"

3) Say "Isn't this against the law? I want to consult my attorney."

4) Say, "Does this mean that I have to quit canvassing for Obama?"

5) Pull a Norma Rae

While all of these answers are appropriate, depending on your perspective (we especially like #1 and #5), #3 is problematic. That is because it is one of the most overlooked, but highly possible results of the Citizens United decision that overturned the federal law restricting corporate expenditures on political campaigns."

"WASHINGTON ˜ The Supreme Court on Monday said it would not decide a case involving Chinese Muslims detained for eight years at Guantánamo Bay that had been set for argument this month.The prisoners, captured in Afghanistan or Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, have been determined to pose no threat to the United States, but the government has opposed their request to be released in the United States.In October, the court agreed to decide whether a federal judge in Washington had the power to order the men released from the prison at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States. But other countries have recently said that they would accept the detainees, and on Monday the justices said that factual developments since it had agreed to hear the case might 'affect the legal issues presented.'"

"COLCHESTER, Vt. -- Vermont Rep. Peter Welch talked about changes that he thinks are necessary in order to preserve the integrity of voting. The concern is over how much influence corporations can have over elections. They can now spend freely on political campaigns after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Some lawmakers think something should be done to keep corporations from having too much influence over who gets elected. Welch, a Democrat, joined others in South Burlington Monday to discuss his ideas."

"When President Obama was elected, legal scholars said he had a unique opportunity to reshape the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, a conservative bastion that had been drifting toward Democratic control. Now, Virginia's two Democratic U.S. Senators are calling on their colleagues to quicken the pace of that shift. Sen. James Webb and Sen. Mark R. Warner on Thursday urged a prompt Senate vote on the 4th Circuit nomination of Virginia Supreme Court Justice Barbara Milano Keenan, a longtime Northern Virginian who has served at every level of the state judiciary. Keenan has been a state Supreme Court justice since 1991 and a trailblazer for women in the law throughout her career."

"As a member of the Junior ROTC, teenager Antonin Scalia toted his rifle on the subway ride back and forth to Queens. As a hunter, he speaks lyrically of stalking wild turkeys. And as a justice, he may have reached the pinnacle of his more than two decades on the Supreme Court when he wrote the majority opinion that said the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm. But when the justices on Tuesday confront the question of whether the amendment applies to state and local governments -- not just the federal government and its enclaves, such as the District of Columbia -- the court's most prominent gun enthusiast faces something of a constitutional quandary."