ACLU, Heritage Foundation Weigh In On Supreme Court's Next Term

By Andrea Salazar

Health care reform and Arizona’s immigration law are expected to be two of the major issues the United States Supreme Court tackles during its fall 2011 term starting in October, and legal analysts representing both ends of the political spectrum are expecting victories for their sides.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Heritage Foundation held dual events in Washington, D.C. Wednesday previewing the upcoming term.

Both organizations touched on the subject of ‘Obamacare’ and agreed that politics must have been involved in the decision to forgo appealing a lower court’s ruling deeming the health care reform law’s individual mandate unconstitutional.

However, Paul Clement, former U.S. solicitor general and partner at Bancroft PLLC, said the question of the mandate’s constitutionality is only the beginning.

“A lot of the focus has been on the individual mandate, but the individual mandate is the tip of the constitutional iceberg when it comes to this case,” he said, “Because you have the question of whether or not the individual mandate is constitutional, if the individual mandate is, in fact, not constitutional, then you have the question of what effect does that have on the rest of this remarkably long and remarkably multifarious statute.”

The ACLU has not officially released an position on the matter, but its legal director, Steven Shapiro, said the mandate falls under the commerce clause and is, therefore, constitutional.

As for Arizona’s immigration law, the constitutionality of which could impact “copycat” laws in states like Georgia, Alabama, Utah, Indiana and South Carolina, Clement says that the administration may face challenges trying to make its case.

“The burden’s on the federal government to explain why it is that immigration is sufficiently different from every other area of the law that a state can’t effectively try to enforce the federal substantive law,” Clement said.

The ACLU’s Omar Jadwat, however, argued that S.B. 1070 goes beyond a federal versus state issue but also has major civil rights implications.

“It’s reminiscent of Jim Crow laws,” Jadwat said, explaining that penalties for being unable to prove one’s legal status creates a system where “certain people are essentially not persons.”

Rulings on the cases the Supreme Court accepts are expected in late June.

Groups Sue Treasury Over Terrorist License

A pair of prominent law organizations are challenging the legality of a provision that requires attorneys to seek permission from the government before representing individuals designated by the U.S. as being terrorists.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) both say the provision amounts to a licensing scheme that prevents groups “from challenging the claimed authority of the executive branch to impose a death penalty on people – including American citizens – far from any battlefield, without due process.”

The lawsuit is a direct product of an initial attempt by the ACLU and CCR to sue the federal government on behalf of alleged terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki’s father. Two weeks after Nasser al-Awlaki retained the two groups, the U.S. designated al-Awlaki as a specially designated terrorist, meaning the groups would have to attain a license from the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) in order to defend him. The current suit challenges the legality of the licensing requirement.

“The issue is not about al-Awlaki’s character or even his alleged crimes,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero during a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. “It’s really about the rights that all Americans should hold dear; the right to due process of law.”

In April, the Obama administration authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki, an American citizen who is believed to have both encouraged and participated in attacks against the United States. al-Awlaki, an imam, was born in New Mexico and is presumed to now be hiding from authorities in Yemen.

McCain And Lieberman Propose Legislation For Indefinite Detention

By Laurel Brishel Prichard University of New Mexico/ Talk Radio News Service

Legislation to hold “high value detainees” for a indefinite amount of time was introduced Thursday by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

“This legislation seeks to ensure that the mistakes made during the apprehension of the Christmas Day bomber, such as reading him his Miranda warning, will never happen again and put Americans’ security at risk,” said McCain, referencing the attempted bombing aboard a commercial aircraft by a young Nigerian man last December.

The introduction of the bill has sparked controversy among numerous human rights organizations, with many claiming that the legislation undermines the constitution.

“Our criminal justice system has proved repeatedly that it is capable of obtaining reliable intelligence from terrorism suspects, while that has not always been the case when we throw detainees into secret detentions and discard all the rules,” said Christopher Anders, the American Civil Liberties Union's Senior Legislative Counsel. “The Constitution is not optional despite the efforts of these senators to render it so.”

If enacted, the bill would ask the president to create a interagency task force to examine the suspect and decide within 48 hours if they are ‘unprivileged.' If the suspect is found to be ‘unprivileged,’ they would be held regardless of whether or not criminal charges are filed.

The task force would meet with the Secretary of Defense, Attorney General and the directors of the FBI and CIA to make final determinations as to the detainees' status.

“Under these circumstances, actionable intelligence must be our highest priority and criminal prosecution must be secondary,” according to a statement released by McCain.

Bill Aims To Assist And Protect Sexual Assault Victims

By Learned Foote -- Talk Radio News Service

Today, in a hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, a panel of expert witnesses testified to the necessity of reauthorizing the “Violence Against Women Act", a law passed by Congress in 1994, and reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. The panelists argued that reauthorization is necessary to improve services offered to victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse, and to strengthen the ability of law-enforcement officials to combat crime.

"Everyday VAWA funding makes a difference in how communities across America assess, assist, and protect victims,” said Catherine Pierce, acting Director of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women.
 
Some witnesses affirmed that work remains to be done to increased funding for rural and under-served communities. 

“I was raped in a wealthy community, with an adequately funded and staffed rape crisis center,” said actress Gabrielle Union, who testified as an advocate for victims of sexual assault. She said that disparate resources varying from neighborhood to neighborhood create a “parallel universe of justice,” and that all victims should have adequate protection.
 
Karen Tronsgard-Scott, Director of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said that: “Women, children and men are actually on waiting lists to receive treatment and therapy after sexual assault. The Violence Against Women Act is working, but the job is not done.” 

The hearing also addressed the issue of DNA testing sexual assault suspects. The American Civil Liberties Union criticized parts of the 2005 re-authorization of VAWA. The ACLU argues that the tests violate the Fourth Amendment, since the samples are collected before suspects are convicted. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
 
“DNA is a very useful tool in identifying suspects,” said Sally Wolfgang Wells, Chief Assistant of the Maricopa County, Arizona Attorney’s Office. "There are a number of crimes that seem to be precursors or associated with sexual crimes, like burglary, petty theft, other kinds of felonies like that. Many states are expanding their DNA testing to those offenders as well, so that - like I said - if we can identify them early and stop even one sexual assault, it’s worth it.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, said that the bill has bipartisan support, and will “continue to serve as a powerful tool to combat violence perpetuated against women and families.” 

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/19885leg20050929.html 

Statement by Center for Constitutional Rights on meeting with Obama

Vincent Warren, Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, met yesterday with President Obama. He released this statement:

CCR attended the meeting as did ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Charlie Swift and others. The president did not preview his speech for us. The president was very open in hearing CCR's concerns on a range of guantanamo policy issues. I came out of the meeting deeply disappointed in the direction that the administration is taking and I don't see meaningful differences between these detention policies and those erected by President Bush.