Category Archives: Courts

A Second Amendment Victory

Posted on by
Reply

…for the most part.  Larry Bell, of Forbes, has the tale.

Federal Judge Edmond Chang, US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, was blunt in his ruling:

Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes that the ordinance tries to serve.  …the ordinances are declared unconstitutional.

Some of that evidence includes the homicide numbers for Chicago.  Last year, for instance, both Chicago led the nation in the number of homicides, and Chicago’s raw homicide numbers jumped 15% even though it has the strictest gun control laws in the US—still, after its ban on concealed carry had been struck down earlier.

Beyond that, 80% of the murders and non-fatal shootings in Chicago last year were gang-related, and very few of those members sought to buy the guns used in these endeavors openly and legally.

Chang did grant Chicago six months to draft a new gun sales law, but this new drafting will need to be closely watched.  Chicago City Attorney Drew Worsek wants the new ordinance to address robust regulations targeting illegal sales and transfer practices.  The city’s judgment concerning what the definition of illegal regarding guns has already been shown, repeatedly, to be suspect.

Chang did have one thing at least partly wrong in his opinion, though:

[C]ertain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.

This is a misreading of the 2nd Amendment, which says quite clearly,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There’s nothing in there authorizing government to declare a purpose for a man to keep and bear Arms, only that his right to do so shall not be infringed.  Indeed, there are two things about this: one is that the government has no role in telling a man what his purposes are; government’s role is in protecting each man’s right to pursue his own ends, his own purposes, and limiting this right only by keeping a man pursuing his own purpose from infringing another man’s right to pursue his.  The second thing is that the history behind the 2nd Amendment, and of the Constitution itself, is the right of every man to protect himself, not only from other men, but from overweening or misbehaving governments.  That is the degree of “self-defense” addressed in this Amendment.

Another Judge and Free Speech

Posted on by
2

On Friday a Wisconsin judge struck a major blow for free political speech when he quashed subpoenas to conservative groups and ordered the return of property to the targets of a so-called John Doe campaign-finance probe.

Wisconsin John Doe “investigations” are secret, star chamber probes into prosecutorial targets in which even the targets are forbidden to speak publicly.  In this case, the targets were conservative organizations who had supported Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in that state’s recently concluded recall election (which Walker won by a larger margin than his original election).  This secret fishing expedition was being conducted by special prosecutor Francis Schmitz at the behest of Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf.

Wisconsin Judge Gregory A. Peterson tossed most of Schmitz’ subpoenas, generally gutting the Landgraf/Schmitz job action.  Peterson was blunt in his ruling:

[The subpoenas] do not show probable cause that the moving parties committed any violations of the campaign finance laws.

And

There is no evidence of express advocacy [as required under Wisconsin law in order t oshow a violation]…the subpoenas fail to show probable cause that a crime was committed.  …the State is not claiming that any of the independent organizations expressly advocated.

Despite disgruntled Wisconsin Democrats’ best efforts (this is the party, remember, that a couple of years ago ran out of Wisconsin en masse, thereby shutting down the state’s government, when they couldn’t get their way on labor law) to continue their attempts to intimidate those of whom they disapprove and to prevent them from speaking, a judge has intercepted their plans and disrupted them, for a time.

Expectations of Privacy

Posted on by
Reply

That we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in our personal effects as we cross foreign borders into foreign countries, and in the crossing process are subject to that country’s laws, is well understood.

Should that lack of expectation in those foreign countries matter, though, concerning our expectation of privacy as we cross our own country’s borders re-entering home from a trip abroad?

In a quasi-related expectations matter, our courts have already ruled, in a mind-reading tour de force, that we must have no such expectation when our private matters are given up to third parties.  These rulings come despite the plethora of privacy protection laws that require those third parties to safeguard our personal matters, and they come while ignoring the enormous hue and cry that ensues a third party’s perceived misuse of our personal matters, even when that (mis)use is narrowly legal—which plainly demonstrates that we do indeed have such an expectation.

One Federal District Judge, Edward Korman of the Eastern District of New York, has ruled that we have no legitimate expectation of privacy on crossing our own border pursuant to coming home.  In a case involving the search of the laptop of an American citizen and journalist (a news photographer, specifically), Korman decided that it’s jake for US border agents have the authority to search laptop computers without reasonable suspicion—just the bald fact that an American is coming home.  Korman’s ruling held, among other things, that

[plaintiff] cannot be so naive to expect that when he crosses the Syrian or Lebanese border that the contents of his computer will be immune from searches and seizures at the whim of those who work for Bashar al-Assad or Hassan Nasrallah.

This application of foreign law as a reason to abrogate an American citizen’s rights domestically, is of a piece with other judges’ rulings that Sharia Law applies in American courts, even to the point of justifying spousal rape (it took an appellate court to overturn this travesty).

Compounding this…opinion…is the further fact that Korman used this excuse to dismiss the citizen/journalist’s lawsuit over the search because he had no standing, having suffered no harm: he had not privacy to invade, and so there was no foul committed.

Korman’s opinion can be seen here.

Another Battle

Posted on by
Reply

…in the Progressive war on women.

Here’s it’s the Obama administration’s response to Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s injunction staying Obama’s  contraceptive mandate as it applies to the Little Sisters of the Poor and their nursing home/hospice in Colorado.  Sotomayor, in issuing her injunction, had ordered the Obama administration to respond by last Friday morning with their argument for why the injunction should be lifted.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s response boiled down to the Little Sisters have no legal claim: they aren’t harmed by authorizing contraceptives to be covered by an insurer in their name because they aren’t offering the coverage directly.  Verrilli went on:

…are not required to offer group health plans in the first place.  [They can make a] “choice” between two legal options: provide a group health plan or risk payment of the tax.

As The Wall Street Journal put it,

This case is simply a raw assertion of state power directing the religious to follow orders.  Thus ObamaCare forces women who have taken a vow of chastity and minister for the dying to implicate themselves in what they consider to be grave moral wrongs.

Expectation of Privacy

Posted on by
Reply

In Klayman v Obama, DC District Federal Judge Richard Leon issued an injunction requiring the government to stop collecting metadata on Americans’ phone calls, ruling the NSA’s program likely unconstitutional.  Leon then stayed his injunction pending appeals.

The Wall Street Journal had some thoughts about Leon’s ruling; as some might expect, I have some thoughts about the WSJ‘s thoughts.

While obtaining the content of phone calls requires a warrant, the High Court ruled that people have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” for information about phone calls such as the date, time and length of their calls and the numbers they dial.  Such transactional data inevitably belong to the service provider, not to individuals….

This is plainly fallacious: that I surrender some of my private data to a third party in no way alters my expectation of privacy.  I expect that third party to protect my data as I would; I expect that third party to protect my data as though they were the third party’s own.  We even have laws on the books requiring such safeguarding; the principle is well established.  It’s true enough that the Supremes have ruled on this before, claiming no expectation of privacy (on a wireless telephone wiretap case some decades ago).   However, that Court had to do a fair amount of mind reading to reach that lack of expectation, and it’s not the first time the Court has been wrong.  Leon is presenting the Supremes with a golden opportunity to correct this particular error.

Contrary to Judge Leon, the reality of the information age is that we all have less expectation of privacy.

This is simply wrong.  I’ve not at all lowered my expectation of privacy; in fact, I expect these advances in technology to enhance my privacy, not deprecate it.

No one who makes calls and emails on a smart phone, visits an e-commerce website, uses a credit card, drives with an Easy Pass or otherwise benefits from modern technology can truly believe that he is not entrusting data to third parties about personal behavior.

This is a careless conflation of two separate issues.  In no way do I reduce my expectation of privacy; I simply expect that third party to safeguard my data.  Those third parties even have procedures to allow me explicitly to instruct them either to safeguard my data or not collect them at all.  My smart phone even has the means to turn off the on-board GPS—and if I turn it on, there’s nothing in that act that permits my location data to be collected for any use but my own.  There’s nothing at all in my use of my smart phone (or my car’s mapping facility) that authorizes the collection of my behavioral data beyond the specific task for which it’s collected—most especially not for government collection.

And, to get to the conflation, the fact that a third party comes into possession of my personal data has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that those data concern my personal behavior.

Well, so what?  The NSA isn’t surveilling lighters at rock concerts, or creating personal mosaics.  The agency is collecting the same basic telephony metadata.

It’s amazing to me that the WSJ would make this argument at all, it’s so plainly fallacious.  The government might decide, at any point, that it’s time to begin surveilling lighters, or the rock concert performers.  Or anyone else about whom it decides to manufacture a suspicion.  Or create those mosaics just because—it certainly now has the data with which to make a good start.

No.  The whole structure of our social compact and of our Constitution is to effect prior restraint of government, not to correct it after it has done its wrong.  That’s a one way street, too: that we tell our government that it cannot engage in prior restraint of us in no way means we cannot engage in that prior restraint of government.

And this, written by Robert Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, in a separate WSJ op-ed about Klayman:

Consider another, more common, type of warrantless search.  Every time Americans catch a flight at a commercial airport, they first must submit to intrusive searches by federal agents without the slightest probable cause or individualized suspicion.  Yet every federal court to decide the issue has held that these searches are “reasonable” and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment (which prohibits only “unreasonable” searches).

Clearly, the privacy interests infringed by airport searches are far greater than having a government computer glance through our telephone bills to make sure we have not been communicating with foreign terrorists.

This is a specious argument.  Turner carefully ignores the vast hue and cry over these searches—based entirely on their privacy invasion aspect—by the travelling public.  There is, indeed, a very strong expectation of privacy, the mind-reading a judiciary insulated by design from the public notwithstanding.

Expectation of privacy is alive and well everywhere but in the minds of most of that insulated judiciary.  Leon got this right.