Media

About That U.S. Attorney Scandal...

Hey, remember the U.S. attorney scandal? Fishy firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 for allegedly partisan reasons? It was a huge deal when the revelations first broke last year, but since then the mainstream media has, in classic MSM-ADD fashion, largely seemed to have lost interest in covering recent developments.

Well, Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, hasn't forgotten about the firings. And he's my hero of the day for promising the White House that he won't let them escape accountability for any potential wrongdoings.

At the Democratic National Convention yesterday, Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz asked Leahy for reaction to the news that a U.S. district court judge has refused to stay an order that former White House aide Harriet Miers is legally required to testify about the firings.

PFAW

Matching the Right's Passion

This week gave me a sobering reminder of just how motivated and organized the Radical Right is. I think it's a real challenge to us to match their passion and commitment. On Wednesday, national and local Religious Right leaders convened a call of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pastors and activists at 215 locations in California, Florida and Arizona. Those are the three states with constitutional amendments banning marriage for same-sex couples on the ballot this year. They rallied their troops for what they describe as nothing less than warfare against "Satan." The call's main focus was Proposition 8 in California, which Watergate felon-turned-Religious Right organizer Chuck Colson called "the Armageddon of the culture war."
PFAW

Fourth Circuit Victory For Religious Liberty

If you read my post back in March after the oral argument before the Fourth Circuit in Turner v. City Council of Fredericksburg, Virginia, you know that it was quite an honor to have had retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the three-judge panel. And now Justice O’Connor has written the court’s opinion in the case, a July 23 unanimous decision in favor of our client, the Fredericksburg City Council.

PFAW

The Supreme Court: What a Difference an Election Makes

April 18, 2007 is the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling upholding a federal ban on certain abortion procedures even though the law did not include an exception to protect a woman’s health. And that ruling, which significantly chips away at women's reproductive freedom, upheld the federal ban even though the Court had struck down a virtually identical state law several years ago.

PFAW

Religious Right Using Lawsuit in Attempt to Undermine Church-State Separation

In 2006, the Rev. Hashmel Turner, a member of the Fredericksburg City Council, took the bizarre step of suing his own City Council. Councilor Turner’s complaint? As an elected government official, he wants the special right to begin City Council meetings by offering a City Council prayer in the name of Jesus — a sectarian, non-inclusive prayer that excludes many Fredericksburg citizens. The City Council, however, following the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, wisely adopted an inclusive policy requiring that any prayers offered to begin its meetings be nondenominational.

PFAW

Marriage Back in Court — Another Chance for California to Make History

Sixty years ago, the California Supreme Court courageously became the first in the country to strike down a law that prohibited interracial marriage — a full twenty years before the United States Supreme Court effectively wiped such laws off the books nationwide. Tomorrow, the California Supreme Court will once again confront marriage discrimination as it hears oral arguments in the consolidated lawsuits challenging the state's refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry. Although the California legislature passed a bill that would have ended this discrimination , it was vetoed by the Governator, and it is now once again up to the state Supreme Court to ensure that, in California at least, equality under the law is a reality for all.

PFAW

Supreme Court Hears Argument on Indiana Voter ID Law

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the consolidated cases of Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, a case that could affect the fundamental right of Americans to vote and possibly even the outcome of future elections, including the 2008 election.

At issue in the case is whether Indiana’s photo voter ID law, which is the most restrictive in the nation, unconstitutionally burdens the fundamental right to vote.

PFAW

Supreme Court Hears Detainee Case

The Supreme Court today heard oral argument in Boumediene v. Bush, an important separation of powers case in which detainees at Guantanamo are challenging the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act, which prohibits them from challenging the legality of their detention through habeas corpus review in federal courts. The detainees contend that the preclusion of habeas review violates the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus except in cases of "rebellion or invasion." PFAWF has filed an amicus curiae brief in the case in support of the detainees' constitutional claims.

PFAW

Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Indiana Voter ID in January

Today, the Supreme Court set oral argument in the Indiana voter ID case for 10 a.m. on Wednesday, January 9, only 12 days after briefing is completed in this case. PFAWF has joined with many other civil rights groups, academics, and election officials in arguing that the restrictive voter ID laws imposed by Indiana disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, and disproportionately affect minorities, students, elderly, women, and the poor, while doing nothing to enhance the integrity of elections. A decision is expected by the end of the term in June.

PFAW

PFAWF Files Amicus Brief in Indiana Voter ID Case

As PFAWF has previously noted on Court Watch, the Supreme Court this term will be hearing an important case challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's restrictive voter ID law, which unnecessarily burdens the rights of eligible voters, particularly minorities, the elderly, students, women, and the poor, without justification. On November 13, PFAWF joined other civil rights organizations in filing an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of those challenging this law.

PFAW

PFAWF Files Supreme Court Amicus Brief In Employment Discrimination Case

On October 19, 2007, PFAWF joined 11 other civil rights groups in filing an amicus curiae brief in Sprint v. Mendelsohn, an employment discrimination case pending in the Supreme Court and one of the cases that we highlighted in our preview of the Court's term because of its importance to the right of employees who believe that they have been subjected to workplace discrimination to obtain justice in the courts. Other groups joining this brief include the NAACP, MALDEF, the National Women's Law Center, the Asian American Justice Center, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a diverse coalition underscoring the importance of this case to the civil rights community.

PFAW

PFAW Foundation Files Amicus Brief in Federal Express v. Holowecki

On September 24, 2007, People For the American Way Foundation, along with AARP, the National Employment Lawyers Association, the National Women's Law Center, the National Partnershipship for Women and Families, and the Asian American Justice Center, filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the Supreme Court in support of the employees in Holowecki. We've previously written about this case, which is an important employment discrimination case that the Court has already agreed to hear this term.

PFAW

Toobin's Take

Court watcher Jeffrey Toobin is launching his new book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, with a round of media interviews. Asked by Time about "the impact of the two new Bush Justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito," Toobin could not have been more blunt — or correct: "This is a much more conservative institution than it was two years ago. There will be no surprises with the Chief and Justice Alito. They are committed fervent judicial conservatives, and they're not going to change."

PFAW

Coming Up at the Court: Preview of Key Supreme Court Cases in the New Term

The first day of October will be the first day of the Supreme Court’s new term, and the justices have already chosen to hear several cases that may well be decided by narrow majorities, as Scalia and Thomas have been joined by Roberts and Alito to form a reliable, ultraconservative voting bloc, with Kennedy as the new swing vote on a Court transformed by Bush Administration nominees.

People For the American Way Foundation has published a preview of several of these cases — cases that could have a profound impact on the rights of Americans, the limits of presidential power, and the conduct of partisan politics. The issues at stake include:

PFAW

Coming Up at the Court: Preview of Key Supreme Court Cases in the New Term

The first day of October will be the first day of the Supreme Court’s new term, and the justices have already chosen to hear several cases that may well be decided by narrow majorities, as Scalia and Thomas have been joined by Roberts and Alito to form a reliable, ultraconservative voting bloc, with Kennedy as the new swing vote on a Court transformed by Bush Administration nominees.

People For the American Way Foundation has published a preview of several of these cases — cases that could have a profound impact on the rights of Americans, the limits of presidential power, and the conduct of partisan politics. The issues at stake include:

PFAW

PFAWF Files Amicus Brief in Church-State Case

People For the American Way Foundation today joined a number of other religious liberty groups, including the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as well as the American Federation of Teachers, in filing an amicus curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Colorado Christian University v. Baker. The University, a private, religious school, has challenged Colorado tuition assistance programs that do not allow the participation of pervasively sectarian schools, consistent with the state Constitution's prohibition on public funding of religious education. The University claims that the Colorado programs violate the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

PFAW