Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional - CNN.com ( If I missed a thead about this already started, feel free to merge/close this one.)
Actually, two provisions. Good on her.
Keep on keepin’ on. *Illegitimi non carborundum * Supposedly this false Latin was invented and popularized during WWII. Good show, old guys.
Thank Og there are people out there who still care enough(or have the resources} to challenge the Guv’mint.
I don’t think this belongs in the pit. This is great news!
Although I agree that some parts need to be challenged, there are also parts I agree with. It is a very large Act.
The ruling was made by a Circuit Judge, and covers the Oregon District. I’m not sure that the ruling applies to other federal districts.
Oh no! I feel endangered already.
How irresponsible of this Clinton-appointed jurist.
Why does she hate America?
Somewhat more seriously, anyone else respond, “Well, duh!” upon reading the reasoning - that the provisions violate the constitutional requirment of probable cause? Crazy, but doesn’t seem like a terribly complicated concept to me. Of course, I think detained US citizens should be given access to counsel. Silly me.
Yeah, but you got Oregon on one side and NY on the other, pretty much bracketing the country (with some Michigan D.Ct. in between). While not binding in other circuits, absent contrary precedent it certainly will be cited - and looked to - for persuasive value.
One crazy thing is when the admin argues it can’t be even challenged on such matters, because acknowledging and defending its practices in court would endanger national security. Sure. I’ll just trust them do do what’s right.
The ruling was made by a federal district judge in the federal district of Oregon. Ity’s not binding precedent even for other cases in the same district, much less the Ninth Circuit, which includes Oregon.
As a general rule, if news story says a judge, singular, rules on something, it won’t be precedential. If a panel of judges rules, then we may be talking about a case that establishes some controlling authority.
In this case… no. The judge’s ruling affects only this particular case.
Forgive my legal ignorance, but doesn’t this set a precedent that other judges can use to come to similar rulings?
Really? IANAL, and I am not that well acquainted with the American legal system, but if I was a lawyer involved a similar case I would be citing it for all it was worth.
At the very least, doesn’t this indicate the judges are still perfectly willing to strike down unconstitutional legislation even if the administration yells “Booga Booga! Terrists! 9/11 9/11 9/11 fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here Islamofascists!”?
(If only Democrats could take an example from this and grow a spine…)
I don’t think I even hinted that it was binding precedent. But I stand by my observation that, in the absence of holdings to the contrary, it can be cited for persuasive effect.
Also, hopefully the gov’t will appeal, so we’ll get to hear what the Cir. feels. Which would be binding w/in the circuit.
You might be able to mention the case for your judge to take “judicial notice” of it (which means, in a nutshell, “here’s a case with a similar facts and here’s how a judge decided that case and we’d like you to decide our case the same way please”) but you would not be able to cite it as precedent (which means, in a nutshell, “here’s a case where a court to whose authority you are subject made this ruling and you must therefore decide our case in this way”) Without getting too deep into the structure of the US federal court system, there’s a Supreme Court, whose rulings are binding precedent for the entire country. The country is divided into “circuits” and the rulings of the circuit court are binding within the circuit but not outside the circuit. So a ruling by the Ninth Circuit court of appeals (which includes among other states California) is binding in the Ninth Circuit but not in, for example the Fifth Circuit (which includes among other states Texas). Then within the circuits there are districts, which may encompass a state or a portion of a state. Rulings from the district court judges have no power as precedent outside the district and, as Bricker notes, don’t necessarily have power as precedent even within the district.
And yes, I realize, Doper lawyers, that my overview of the American court system is woefully simplistic but I think it serves for purposes of this discussion.
Well, now they have an inescapable choice: Let this stand, or appeal to a higher court – where they would have to acknowledge and defend.
But now lawyers can cite it in any case presenting the same issues – and if the judge reaches a contrary ruling, that diversity of opinions is exactly the sort of thing that justifies an appellate court in hearing it. We’ll get an appellate ruling eventually.