Several groups have filed a lawsuit to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing a rule that, the groups contend, "will threaten jobs of U.S. citizens and other legally authorized workers simply because of errors in the government's inaccurate social security earnings databases."

According to Public Citizen, a lawsuit filed in the 9th Circuit seeks to stop an Administration-backed pilot program that would allow Mexican-domiciled trucks to gain access to U.S. roadways and thus violate U.S. law while also raising safety and environmental concerns.

ACS is pleased to release a comprehensive index of presidential signing statements issued between 2001 and 2007. The index, compiled by Neil Kinkopf, associate professor of law at Georgia State University College of Law and former special assistant in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, provides a comprehensive list of every provision of a law objected to by the White House in a signing statement, the reason for the objection, and a link to the relevant signing statement.

The index of presidential signing statements is a companion piece to an issue brief written by Professor Kinkopf, Signing Statements and the President's Authority to Refuse to Enforce the Law, that analyzes whether and when the President may refuse to enforce a law that the President regards as unconstitutional.

"I don’t know if President Bush understood how extreme some of the arguments were about executive power that some people in his administration were making” Jack Goldsmith, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, said to the New York Times.

The Washington Post reviewed Goldsmith's recent book, "The Terror Presidency," which discussed White House resistance to Goldsmith's constitutional concerns:

As I absorbed the opinions, I concluded that some were deeply flawed: sloppily reasoned, overbroad, and incautious in asserting extraordinary constitutional authorities on behalf of the President. . . . I was astonished, and immensely worried, to discover that some of our most important counterterrorism policies rested on severely damaged legal foundations.

The Times reported Goldsmith as saying he withdrew more legal opinions than any of his predecessors.

“I’m not a civil libertarian, and what I did wasn’t driven by concerns about civil liberties per se,” he told [Jeffrey Rosen]. “It was a disagreement about means, not ends, driven by a desire to make sure that the administration’s counterterrorism policies had a firm legal foundation.”

Colonel Dwight Sullivan, Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, says "by any objective measure, the military commission system has been a complete failure."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington pointed out today how the White House web site that had initially indicated the Office of Administration was subject to FOIA requests has changed its tune. 

The web site now comports with a DOJ filing that claims the Office of Administration is not subject to FOIA. The Justice Department's filing seeks to stop a lawsuit requesting internal White House documents about an estimated 5 million missing e-mails, some of which potentially cover the firing of federal prosecutors by the White House.

The Star-Telegram reported "a native Texan spent the night in the Arlington Jail, missed her children's first day of school and feared being deported after authorities mistook her for an illegal immigrant."

This is not the first time this has happened.

Earlier this year, authorities wrongly deported U.S. citizen Pedro Guzman, a developmentally disabled man from California. It took his family three months to find him.

Why is this happening?

Law enforcement experts say similar situations may happen again as the government creates more databases of names to fight illegal immigration, terrorism and other crimes.

The Urban Justice Center has created an award that provides seed money for a project that advocates for a marginalized and under-represented population in creative ways. Available to attorneys and law students graduating no later than 2008 and focused on New York, applications for the $100,000 award are due by November 15, 2007. Application and guidelines available here.

"A Moroccan immigrant who was held for three years before his terrorism-related conviction was thrown out has filed a $9 million federal lawsuit against the prosecutor and two others involved in the case," the Associated Press reported.

More commentary by MoreSoftMoneyHardLaw on Tova Wang's op-ed on suppression of the content of her report regarding voter fraud and intimidation by the Election Assistance Commission. We wrote about it here.

American Progress hosted an event yesterday on FISA. Information about it is available here. Relatedly, Glenn Greenwald has a piece on warrantless surveillance of Coretta Scott King.

Death sentence commuted in Texas for a person sentenced to die for the murder committed by another; commentary at Lawyers Guns & Money.

Jeralyn at TalkLeft discusses a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of foreign-born widows facing deportation because their husbands died before immigration paperwork was approved.

Religion Clause reports that "another use of Pentagon facilities by evangelical Christian groups has been uncovered by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation."

The Wall Street Journal reports on budget problems at the DOJ.

Update:

ThinkProgress reports that military censors have banned the progressive web site from the U.S. military network in Baghdad subsequent to its posting an article by  Retired Major General John Batiste that criticized the President's Iraq policy. Think Progress reports that other media outlets, including Fox News, are still accessible to the troops.

Firedoglake fronts a U.S. News & World Report article that reports "one fourth of the department’s own civil appellate staff has recently opted out of handling the government’s cases against detainee appeals."

A judge in Polk county Iowa struck down an Iowa law banning gay marriage, the Des Moines Register reported.

The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered Polk County Recorder Julie Haggerty to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples.

“It’s a moral victory for equal rights,” said Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson, who represented six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses.

The county is expected to appeal to the state supreme court.

Update: the Iowa Independent reports the court's basis for the decision:

The statute excluding same-sex couples from marriage "violates Plaintiff's due process and equal protection rights for the aforementioned reasons including, but not limited to, the absence of a rational relationship to the achievement of any legitimate governmental interest."  Therefore the law is "unconstitutional and invalid."

A longer description of the judge's reasoning -- denying one of the government's assertions as being a legitimate governmental interest and holding four others were not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest -- can be found in the article.

The text of the opinion (all 63 pages) can be found here.

The lawsuit was brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of six same-sex couples.

Additional Resources

• ACS has a 2006  issue brief written by Suzanne Goldberg that examines the movement for marriage rights of same sex couples. 
  
• Streaming video of a discussion of the differences between marriage and civil unions from a panel at ACS's 2007 national convention is available here.
• Video from a 2006 discussion on federal preemption of state law, which included a discussion of marriage rights of same sex couples, can be found here.

The Department of Justice is investigating sooner-to-be former Attorney General Gonzales for giving false or misleading testimony to congress about . . . the Department of Justice, reports the Washington Post.

The Justice Department is investigating whether departing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales gave false or misleading testimony to Congress on a broad range of issues, including the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program and the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year, the lead investigator said today.

The disclosure by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine shows that internal investigations that began with the prosecutor firings have widened substantially to include a focus on Gonzales's actions and statements.

Gonzales' resignation will take effect on Constitution Day, September 17.

ACS is pleased to release an issue brief by Dawn Johnsen, Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law--Bloomington, entitled, All the President's Lawyers: How to Avoid Another "Torture Opinion" Debacle. The brief is available here.

Professor Johnsen examines the inadequacy of external checks on presidential powers, particularly as exercised in a time of war or national emergency. More specifically, she outlines the executive branch legal memoranda severely limiting the definition of torture.

Michael at Discourse.net answers the question as to how long Paul Clement can be acting Attorney General.  In the absence of a nominee, the answer appears to be up to 210 days.

Rick Hasen has an interesting piece on Findlaw that argues "our politics have become too sophisticated to be contained by the current laws governing our system for choosing the president."

Wired reports that TorrentSpy, a search engine that allegedly violated copyright infringement laws by helping users trade pirated material, has begun blocking US-based IP addresses in response to a judge's order to track its users and give the data to the MPAA. The reason?  Upholding their privacy policy: "We believe that the privacy rights of users in this context are substantially more important than issues related to secondary and possibly tertiary copyright infringement."

In related technology news, Wired also reports on Verizon's request to throw out a lawsuit seeking damages for an "alleged mass transfer of customer calling records to the National Security Agency." The article reports Verizon will likely attempt to assert state secret privilege (which is probably mooted by the government's acknowledgment of the program) and First Amendment rights to not talk.

Firedoglake rails against the execution of a man in Texas, the only state "where someone can be executed because of someone else’s actions." TalkLeft also discusses the case, noting that Texas will execute three people over three consecutive days.

Election Law Blog reports an Arizona judge has upheld a voter ID law, which was on remand from the Supreme Court (the case is the former Purcell v. Gonzales).

Religion Clause Blog reports that a Texas judge has refused to issue a temporary injunction restraining schools from reciting the Texas pledge of allegiance that has just been amended to contain the phrase "one state under God."

Lawyers, Guns, and Money has a review of Young J. Edgar: Hoover, the Red Scare, and the Assault on Civil Liberties, which delves into the 1919 Palmer raids.

Anonymous Liberal has read the petitioner's brief in Al Odah and submits an analysis.

WSJ Law Blog examines Senator Larry Craig's criminal procedure lesson.

The Nation calls for Congress to continue inquiring into administration practices after Gonzales' departure.

The LA Times explores private prisons.

Sherry Colb has an article on Findlaw that explores attitudes of the pro-life community towards imprisoning women who have abortions.

Secrecy News has two pieces, one on the FBI's shift from primarily law enforcement to intelligence gathering, the other on the domestic use of spy satellites.

Tova Wang writes in an op-ed in the Washington Post that the congressionally-established Election Assistance Commission "completely stood our own work on its head" by changing findings in a report she co-wrote on improving democracy and voting.

We said that our preliminary research found widespread agreement among administrators, academics and election experts from all points on the political spectrum that allegations of fraud through voter impersonation at polling places were greatly exaggerated. We noted that this position was supported by existing research and an analysis of several years of news articles. The commission chose instead to state that the issue was a matter of considerable debate. And while we found that problems of voter intimidation were still prevalent in a variety of forms, the commission excluded much of the discussion of voter intimidation. . . .

We also raised questions about the way the Justice Department was handling complaints of fraud and intimidation. The commission excised all references to the department that might be construed as critical -- or that Justice officials later took issue with. And all of the suggestions we received from political scientists and other scholars regarding methodologies for a more scientifically rigorous look at these problems were omitted.

Follow this link to read more.

The Congressional Research Service issued a report on August 23rd (and made available today by Secrecy News/Federation of American Scientists) that explains the modifications to FISA as passed by Congress in the "Protect America Act of 2007."

In short, the Act (according to CRS):

The 2007 National Convention included a panel of senior DOJ personnel and a White House Counsel discussing the historical relationship between the Justice Department and the White House, and between the Department and the U.S. Attorneys.

Moderated by Arthur B. Culvahouse, former White House Counsel, the panel included Viet Dinh, former U.S. Assistant Attorney for Legal Policy, Judge Raymond Fisher, former U.S. Associate Attorney General, Judge Merrick Garland, former U.S. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General. Streaming video is available here.

Wired magazine explains that newly obtained documents makes FBI eavesdropping as easy as point and click and may open security holes in the telecommunications network.

The surveillance system, called DCSNet, for Digital Collection System Network, connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by traditional land-line operators, internet-telephony providers and cellular companies. It is far more intricately woven into the nation's telecom infrastructure than observers suspected. . . .

Together, the [three] surveillance systems [collectively known as DCSNet] let FBI agents play back recordings even as they are being captured (like TiVo), create master wiretap files, send digital recordings to translators, track the rough location of targets in real time using cell-tower information, and even stream intercepts outward to mobile surveillance vans. . . .

In the 1990s, the Justice Department began complaining to Congress that digital technology, cellular phones and features like call forwarding would make it difficult for investigators to continue to conduct wiretaps. Congress responded by passing the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, in 1994, mandating backdoors in U.S. telephone switches.

FBI wiretapping rooms in field offices and undercover locations around the country are connected through a private, encrypted backbone that is separated from the internet. Sprint runs it on the government's behalf. . . .To security experts, though, the biggest concern over DCSNet isn't the cost: It's the possibility that push-button wiretapping opens new security holes in the telecommunications network.

September 17 (Monday) is the last day to file a claim for a portion of a settlement reached with Barbri for alleged anti-trust violation. Individuals may receive on average $125 (this amount is subject to ongoing litigation -- see this law.com article).

Those eligible to join must have taken a BarBri course between August 1997 and July 31, 2006.

Follow this link for more information, including the appropriate paperwork and text of the settlement agreement.

by Geoffrey R. Stone, Professor of law at the University of Chicago and author of War and Liberty: An American Dilemma (2007)

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Alberto Gonzales’s sorry tenure in the Bush administration would seem to give credence to Shakespeare’s oft-cited incitement against the legal profession.

The primary responsibility of the Attorney General is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States in a fair and even-handed manner. In failing to comprehend this responsibility, Alberto Gonzales compromised himself, his office, the Constitution, and ultimately even the President who appointed him.

The responsibility every Attorney General owes the nation is to raise hard legal and constitutional questions within the administration whenever the President is tempted to overreach the limits of his authority. Gonzales, however, chose to function more like the President’s personal legal strategist, doing everything in his power to justify the President’s apparent desire to authorize torture, deny detainees access to the writ of habeas corpus, order unlawful electronic surveillance, and institute legal proceedings that defy due process of law.

There is no excuse, other than cronyism and personal weakness, for Gonzales’s confusion about his appropriate role, and in point of fact, he and future office holders could learn much from the extraordinarily disciplined and principled actions of some of his predecessors who also served our nation in perilous times.

Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general, has an op-ed in today's Washington Post setting forth ten priorities for the next Attorney General. Here are the recommendations in a nutshell:

• Restore credibility and comity with Congress.
• Take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
• Bring the professionals back.
• Depoliticize hiring.
• Restore order to the relationship with the White House.
• Keep politics out of public integrity cases.
• Maintain vigilance against terrorism.
• Fight crime.
• Respect rights.
• Lead with values.

Watch Jamie Gorelick and others discuss the role of the Justice Department from ACS' 2007 national convention. Clips from that discussion are forthcoming.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned today. Video and transcript available here.

For a background on the role and purpose of the Department of Justice, watch this panel discussion from the the 2007 ACS national convention.

Congressional Quarterly reported in early August that Senator Harry Reid and President Bush had an agreement that Bush would not make any recess appointments, which would apparently include Gonzales' replacement.

Majority Leader Harry  Reidconfidently  predicted that Bush will not use his constitutional authority to fill top jobs without Senate confirmation. “We have an agreement with the president,” said Reid, D-Nev. “We don’t think there will be any.”

For a primer on recess appointments, see the following CRS Reports: Recess Appointments: a Legal Overview, and Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions.

Talking Points Memo has a round-up of senior management that have recently left the Justice Department, and a primer on Paul Clement, the acting head of the department.

It is unclear who President Bush will nominate to succeed Gonzales, although reports are pointing to Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff.

The resignation will take effect September 17. Paul Clement, the Solicitor General, will serve as acting Attorney General.

After the jump is a round-up of news reports and statements by elected officials.

The GAO just published a report examining how federal agencies review existing regulations, concluding "Opportunities Exist to Improve Effectiveness and Transparency of Retrospective Reviews." The 122-page report's recommendations are after the jump.

The AP reports "The Bush administration argued Friday that discrepancies between the nation's new terror law and the way it is being carried out should not stall one of the Pentagon's first terrorism trials."

Arguing before the newly formed U.S. Court of Military Commission Review, government attorneys urged judges to look beyond the letter of the law when deciding whether the military undermined its terrorism tribunals at Guantanamo Bay.

The case hinges on a single word: unlawful. Before terror suspects can be prosecuted before military commissions, the law requires they be deemed "unlawful enemy combatants." But Guantanamo Bay tribunals have simply been calling them "enemy combatants."

Lawyers for Omar Khadr argue that's a fatal flaw in the government's case and that Khadr can't go before a military commission. If the three-judge appeals court agrees, it could force the Pentagon to redo tribunals for dozens of detainees.

Is this request consistent with President Bush's judicial philosophy of having judges avoid "legislating from the bench?"

Slate has more on conservative critiques of judicial activism.