This morning, the news is all about last night's House vote on Patriot Act reauthorization. Lawmakers voted 257-171 to make permanent 14 of the expiring provisions, and to extend two others for an additional decade which is a very long time.
The news, unfortunately, is not about the Senate Judiciary Committee's legislation, which passed unanimously in committee yesterday and is a sight better than what the House came up with (more on that later).
Unfortunately, the media environment could not be worse for the House to be considering legislation with such potentially dire consequences.
Airwave oxygen is being sucked away by not one, not two, but three major news stories: the Roberts nomination, the attacks in London and the continuing flap over the Roveian Slip at the White House. And it doesn't look like the last one is going to Plame out any time soon (okay, sorry, I couldn't resist).
Still, on Wednesday, USA Today ran a (alongside a pro-Patriot Act piece): "Congress has the antidote to prevent such abuse. It can fix the law's problems and ensure its most controversial provisions will have to be reviewed again soon."
The notes Orange County Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's impassioned speech in favor of including new four year sunsets on all of the expiring provisions. "These powers were not to be permanent,'' he said. "They were to help us win the war, not become permanent." The notes the political dynamic: ''There's plenty of room to make agreements," says Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass. "But they don't want people like me to vote for it. The whole approach is totally political."
In the , Republican Rep. "Butch" Otter from Idaho actually said: "I'm embarrassed to be on this side of the aisle." Ouch. That story also quotes Senior Legislative Counsel (and an intimidatingly good blogger) Lisa Graves. And here, from the , quoting Lisa. quotes Lisa again. The , doing what? Quoting Lisa.
Despite the dismal legislation in our lower chamber, the Senate Judiciary Committee also approved legislation today, which is a significant improvement.
Among other things, it would require the F.B.I. to have an factual basis before seeking a Section 215 court order for the production of personal records, and further requires some connection with a suspected terrorist or spy or an innocent person in contact with such a suspect (as opposed to the current standard, which only requires a certification that the records themselves are relevant to a terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation).
However, on Section 505, which allows the federal government to demand banking, Internet, telephony and other types of records without going through a judge, it halves the baby. The bill would give the recipient of one of these "national security letters" the right to consult with an attorney and to challenge the letter, but it does not contain a standard requiring a statement of facts showing relevance or any connection with a suspected terrorist, spy or person in contact with a suspect.
What next? The action now moves to the Senate. And, to be quite clear, the Senate Judiciary Committee's bill is a significant improvement over the House legislation. As our Policy Counsel for National Security Tim Edgar wrote in his letter to the Hill on the bill:
We genuinely appreciate the efforts Senators have made to include significant improvements in the Senate Judiciary Committee bill. We are especially appreciative of the efforts of the Chairman, Ranking Member Leahy, Senator Durbin, and Senator Feingold to craft a bill that won the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee in the mark-up today. We commend the hard work of those who have toiled to produce a bipartisan bill that takes a significant step forward in improving some of the most intrusive provisions of the Patriot Act.
Expect to see action on the Senate legislation come to the floor before the Hill breaks for its August "in-district work period." This is not a bad thing, so long as the strides made in the Senate bill can be preserved when the two chambers meet to hammer out their differences in conference. As for the ACLU, that means it's time to redouble our efforts (not to quote the first scene from Return of the Jedi) to make that happen.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.