And this is, uh, constitutional? Everybody gets due process unless they're accused of something? I'm so confused.
CB: "The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on February 23, 2010. A transcript of the argument is available for download."
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.