SCOTUScast on Cone v. Bell: The Federalist Society has posted Kent's commentary on the Supreme Court's decision in Cone v. Bell (07-1114). Kent summarizes the case history, and then delves into the Court's decision. As Kent says, "In terms of the law governing review of criminal cases on habeas corpus, this decision changed very little. Given the clear guilt of the defendant and the minimal mitigating value of his evidence, we have to wonder why the Court accepted it. Perhaps it wished to send a message to prosecutors in lower courts that it takes these nondisclosure things very seriously and wants them reviewed very carefully..." CJLF's brief is available here.
Criminalizing Terrorist Support: At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston reports on the Government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. Since 1996, under AEDPA, it has been a crime to provide "material support or resources" to any group designated by U.S. officials as a "foreign terrorist organization," but in December 2007, the Ninth Circuit struck down several parts of the law, finding them unconstitutionally vague and that they threaten free speech rights of those who would support non-violent activities of the designated organizations. The Justice Department appealed the decision, asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari "because the material-support statute is an important tool in the Nation's fight against international terrorism." Today, the Humanitarian Law Project filed its Brief in Opposition. The Humanitarian Law Project has also filed a cross-petition asking the Supreme Court to review the provisions of the law that the Ninth Circuit upheld, if the Court decides to grant certiorari. If the Court grants review, it will be asked to determine whether the parts of the law that criminalize support for terrorist groups through "training," "expert advice or assistance," or "service" are too vague. If it also accepts the cross-petition, the Court may be review the Ninth Circuit's decision to uphold the parts of the law that make it a crime to provide assistance to a designated organization through "personnel" or "scientific or technical knowledge."
ABA Unanimously Finds Judge Sotomayor "Well-Qualified": At Blog of Legal Times, David Ingram reports that the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given Judge Sotomayor it's highest rating. It is the same rating that it gave the past four additions to the Court. Since the end of May, a team of law professors, lawyers, Supreme Court law clerks and other experts familiar with the high court have examined Sotomayor's legal writings. According to Amy Harder, at The Ninth Justice, "[t]he evaluation doesn't take into account a nominee's philosophy or ideology..."
Criminalizing Terrorist Support: At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston reports on the Government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. Since 1996, under AEDPA, it has been a crime to provide "material support or resources" to any group designated by U.S. officials as a "foreign terrorist organization," but in December 2007, the Ninth Circuit struck down several parts of the law, finding them unconstitutionally vague and that they threaten free speech rights of those who would support non-violent activities of the designated organizations. The Justice Department appealed the decision, asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari "because the material-support statute is an important tool in the Nation's fight against international terrorism." Today, the Humanitarian Law Project filed its Brief in Opposition. The Humanitarian Law Project has also filed a cross-petition asking the Supreme Court to review the provisions of the law that the Ninth Circuit upheld, if the Court decides to grant certiorari. If the Court grants review, it will be asked to determine whether the parts of the law that criminalize support for terrorist groups through "training," "expert advice or assistance," or "service" are too vague. If it also accepts the cross-petition, the Court may be review the Ninth Circuit's decision to uphold the parts of the law that make it a crime to provide assistance to a designated organization through "personnel" or "scientific or technical knowledge."
ABA Unanimously Finds Judge Sotomayor "Well-Qualified": At Blog of Legal Times, David Ingram reports that the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given Judge Sotomayor it's highest rating. It is the same rating that it gave the past four additions to the Court. Since the end of May, a team of law professors, lawyers, Supreme Court law clerks and other experts familiar with the high court have examined Sotomayor's legal writings. According to Amy Harder, at The Ninth Justice, "[t]he evaluation doesn't take into account a nominee's philosophy or ideology..."
Leave a comment