[lbo-talk] civil liberties under BHO

[c b]

NYT 2.24.10 In oral arguments in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.
No. 08-1498, SG Elena Kagan argued to the Court that it would
constitute the crime material aid to terrorism under USAPA _for a
lawyer to file a friend of the court brief_ on behalf of a group the
State Dep't (unreviewably, last time I checked) has designated as a
terrorist group._ It would also be a crime for a lawyer to petition
international bodies on behalf of such a group. She asked the Court to
trust "prosecutorial judgment" to guard against abuse.

And this is, uh, constitutional? Everybody gets due process unless
they're accused of something?
I'm so confused.

Joanna

^^^^^^^

CB:  "The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on February 23,
2010. A transcript of the argument is available for download."

http://ccrjustice.org/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project

The Supreme Court probably hasn't rendered a decision yet since the
hearing was on Feb 23 , two days ago.

Thus,  the answer is the Supreme Court hasn't answered yet whether
it's constitutional or not.

Due process isn't very fully implicated since this refers to an amicus
curiae/friend of the court brief. In other words, it's not a brief
from the trial lawyer for the defendant, but another lawyer, such as
from the Center for Constitutional Rights. The Constitutional right
offended might more directly be the First Amendment - Freedom of
Speech- for an _amicus curiae_

Nonetheless, it's an outrageous statutory provision, and I agree that
BHO/Holder shouldn't have allowed this to go forward.