Media Shield Law on the Horizon

The NYT is reporting on the development of the media shield law designed to protect reporters from disclosing their sources. The law is required in order to give cover to sources who provide information vital to the public knowledge. The type of law that the NYT is reporting on seems like it might be sufficient protection but much hangs on any potential litigation in the court system.

As reported by the Times,

Under the deal, made public Friday, federal judges could quash subpoenas demanding testimony or information from reporters if the judges determined that the public interest in news gathering outweighed the need to uncover the source of a leak, including, in some circumstances, unauthorized disclosure of classified government information.

Protection under the so-called shield law would also be extended to unpaid bloggers engaged in gathering and disseminating news.

A version of shield legislation was approved by the House in March. But a similar bill has stalled in the Senate, and its prospects appeared to dim significantly in September when the administration, responding to apprehension expressed by intelligence agencies and prosecutors, took a harder line with regard to cases in which the government could claim national security concerns.

With the new agreement, however, the White House has now moderated that position.

The text of the bill is here in pdf.

As they say the devil is in the details. The determination of when a source is protected and when it isnt is made in the courts under a balancing test of public need to know versus need to keep secret. The Senate version of the legislation categorizes three different balancing tests for courts to use in deciding when disclosure is required. There are different considerations for civil, criminal, and national security cases.

In a standard criminal cases the standard required for production of a source is that a preponderance of the evidence shows that the compelling party has exhausted reasonable alternatives and that the source is "critical to the investigation or prosecution or to the defense against the prosecution". the washington post stated that,

In criminal cases, the compromise puts the burden on the journalist to establish in court why the public interest would be harmed by the disclosure of a source or sources. The government or defense attorney would need to show only that the information sought is essential to the case.

This is not quite true. My reading of the law is that the burden is always on the compelling party. They must show that the compulsion of the source for the prosecution of the case outweighs any interest in keeping the source under wraps. there is not a burden shift. It is possible that the way the proposed law will play out in criminal circumstances is that there will be a standing presumption in the courts that the prosecution interest outweighs the interest in keeping it secret but the law as proposed doesnt contain that presumption. In fact it could be argued that the law itself represents the idea that the presumption is against disclosure. In assessing this language the NYT said,

Ordinary criminal cases, as in prosecutors’ effort to find out who leaked grand jury information about professional athletes’ steroid use to The San Francisco Chronicle, would work the same way, except that the balancing test would be heavily tilted in favor of prosecutors. For a judge to quash a subpoena, the burden would be on a reporter to make it “clear and convincing” that the public interest in the free flow of information should prevail.

The language of the law as is available does not use the words clear and convincing in regards to the disclosure and balancing test for journalists. i am not sure where they got this idea as they dont link to available source of text. As currently available the only standard used in regards to disclosure is preponderance. To compel a source the case must be made that the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information is outweighed by the need for disclosure. Disclosure must "more probably than not" outweigh that interest. It is for the compelling party to prove this. Maybe it is going to be amended to shift and ammend the burden but it hasnt yet.

On the civil side it plays out much as it does on the criminal side. all other options must be exhausted and the source must be one "critical to the successful completion of the matter" and again the disclosure interest must outweigh the secrecy interest.

That leads to the final category, national security. National security had been the sticking point as according to HuffPo,

The administration wanted to eliminate that balancing test in many cases involving terrorism and other security cases.

Under the compromise, the balancing test would be eliminated in classified leak cases where the government can show that disclosure of a source's identity is necessary to prevent or mitigate an act of terrorism or substantial harm to national security. But the government would also have to provide specific facts: it could not make a national security claim and then withhold most of the details.

This change has not yet been made in the available text. As currently drafted the text has the balancing test for national security just as the house bill has. From what i can tell this means that section 2 (a)(3)(A) will be moved outside section 2(a)and new language will be added as to the specificity required for compulsion. Right now it is only a "reasonableness" standard which is a very illusive and slippery burden. Judges would most likely side with the government on these types of cases simply because they wouldnt want a terrorist attack on their heads.

Most of the effects of this legislation will be determined by how high the courts choose to weigh the interests of non-disclosure. Because this is one of the weights in the balancing test an artificially low weight would gut the legislation and a heavy weight would prove very restrictive. Until this is litigated though the answer wont be known. According to Arlen Specter since 2001 at least 19 journalists had been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors for information about confidential sources and that four had been imprisoned for refusing to comply. What he doesnt say is whether any of them would be helped by this law.

Unless significant weight ends up on the journalists side and unless the courts actually hold the governments feet to the fire on national security claims the law could be much ado about nothing.

Read more...

Sotomayor and the Lack of A Liberal Philosophy

Its hard to blame Judge Sotomayor for not giving a long drawn out lecture on the nature of the American Appellate system to the Senators who asked her questions. She after all really wants to be on the Court. It is clear that at this point in time simply keeping your mouth shut and letting the Senators talk about themselves and their views is the easiest way to be confirmed.

You can search around the bloggosphere and see the disappointment in liberal circles that sotomayor failed to articulate any meaningful liberal view of the role of the judiciary in American Society. This is true. We didnt here about the constitution as an illustrative document of principles that are applied to current situations. Instead we heard plenty about restraint and open mindedness. We heard that the Court, contrary to everyone elses understanding, doesnt make policy.

The only time we might see an honest discussion about how the courts in this country operate is if we get someone up there in the hearings who doesnt care about being confirmed. Imagine someone simply going up there and telling it like it is. That the Court makes policy, edits and rewrites law.

Read more...

For Steele: A Brief Understanding of Law

I think it might be a waste of my time to respond to chairman Steele's ridiculous assertions regarding the linkage of empathy and law. I feel like Steele's comments deserve the Billy Madison response. Despite this inclination i want to address Steele and help him understand why his comments are so divorced from reality and an understanding of how the law works.

Other than "possession is 9 tenths of the law" this is probably the most quoted passage having to due with the law,

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics."

Now compare this quote from Holmes to the words of Chairman Steele,

STEELE: Good morning y’all, we’re back in the house. We’re talking a little bit of Constitution and a little bit Supreme Court. And a whole lot of saving America’s judicial system and saving our rights as citizens and not having empathetic judges decide cases, but rather judges who are actually understanding the rule of law and what the Constitution and those laws are all about. And how to apply the facts to the law and the law to the facts. And adjudicate my case. I don’t need some judge sitting up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition. And short changing me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law. Crazy nonsense empathetic. I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness.

First tip for Steele is to stop trying to talk like he is beyond the cutting edge. It doesnt work and it makes it hard to take him seriously. His major point though seems to be that in a slam dunk case where he should win the life experience or situation of the other guy will steal his win. That is absolutely not how it works and is the absolute wrong conception of what barack obama means by empathy. A better look at what Obama means by empathy is Lily Leadbetter,

For nearly 20 years, from 1979 until she retired in 1998, she worked as a supervisor at Goodyear's tire plant in Gadsden, Ala. She was an area manager, one of the few women in such a position. At first, her pay was in line with what the men in the same job made. Then it slipped. By the end of 1997, she made $3,727 a month. The lowest paid man doing that same work made $4,286 a month, and the highest paid men were getting $5,236. So she sued.

"I just could not believe that they would separate the female pay so far down the line from my male peers," she told NBC News at the time. "I was shocked when my attorneys accumulated all the information, and I saw how low it was."

Her legal argument was this: Every time the company wrote her a check, it was committing sex discrimination. But she lost. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, said she waited too long to sue. The majority said federal law requires workers to file their complaints within 180 days of an act of discrimination. In other words, the court said, that clock starts ticking when an employer decides how much to pay, not each time a paycheck is written, years later.

In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg said employers often keep salaries secret, meaning it can take years for workers to realize that discrimination was keeping their pay lower. She accused her male colleagues on the court of failing to understand how pay discrimination works. It's not like being denied a promotion, she wrote, when you know right away what happened. And, at first, women may not want to make waves if they think their pay is low, she said.

Empathy from the bench is understanding that a technical issue like the one in the leadbettter should not overcome the injustice done to her by the discrimination. The first rule of the federal rules of civil procedure is that the rules should be interpreted to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive resolutions. It is impossible to evaluate the justness of a situation if you cannot understand or automatically discount the policy arguments being made. The decisions from the Court and from appeals benches have real world impacts.

When a judge talks about "making policy" what they mean is that the result of a decision at the high levels of the justice system defines the law and how it will apply in similar situations in the future. They do this though only in murky situations without clear answersThey cannot simply issue the law by fiat.

First, let's tackle the easy issue: Do judges make laws, or, acting solely on personal will, do they create broad rules for everyone to follow? No. Federal courts only hear cases or controversies involving disputes over federal law (with very few exceptions). Outside of these cases or controversies, courts, unlike lawmakers and executives, cannot simply announce policy.
...
When judges decide cases, the issues are usually straightforward. But there are many cases where the law is either unclear or where the relevant constitutional provision, statute or common law principle leaves a fair amount of discretion for courts to pick among reasonable choices. In those instances, particularly in the context of constitutional law, courts arguably "make policy" as they attempt to define the boundaries of legal constraints and obligations. Conservative and liberal rulings follow this principle.

The incorporation of empathy into deciding murky cases with far reaching implications is hardly crazy. It is essential to accomplishing what steele says he wants, equal protection under the law. In fact, if courts act in ways that run contrary to the will or feelings of the general public, there is a way to fix this. This marvel that constrains the ability of the court to make policy is called the legislature. thats right, in most cases congress can edit or rewrite the law to preclude the reading that the judiciary attaches to it. This is exactly what congress did when they passed the Lilly Leadbetter act as the first piece of legislation this term. If you have any doubt about the need for empathy in the judiciary see this post by hilzoy,

Here's some evidence from Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine, pp. 218-219 (note that Justice Powell was the swing vote in this case, and came down in favor of upholding Georgia's sodomy statute):

"One Saturday in the spring of 1986, Justice Lewis Powell struck up a conversation with one of his law clerks, Cabell Chinnis Jr., about Bowers v. Hardwick. As Chinnis recounted the exchange to Joyce Murdoch and Deb Price, authors of a history of gay rights at the Supreme Court, Powell asked about the prevalence of homosexuality, which one friend-of-the-court brief estimated at 10%. Chinnis said that sounded right to him. "I don't believe I've ever met a homosexual", Powell replied. Chinnis said that seemed unlikely. Later the same day, Powell came back to Chinnis and asked, "Why don't homosexuals have sex with women?" "Justice Powell," he replied, "a gay man cannot have an erection to perform intercourse with a woman." The conversation was especially bizarre not just because of its explicit nature but because Chinnis himself was gay (as were several of Powell's previous law clerks.)"

You have to feel for the poor clerk: there he is, a closeted gay man, being quizzed by his boss about why homosexuals don't have sex with women. (Apparently, Justice Powell wasn't thinking of lesbians at all.) I think that a good working definition of empathy would be: that quality that allows a straight man or woman to know the answer to that question without having to ask his or her law clerks. And I would think that the fact that Justice Powell had to ask that question might explain why he believed, falsely, that he had never met a homosexual: if you were gay, would you tell him?

Justice Powell was, as I said, the swing vote in a case that upheld criminalizing consensual gay sex carried out in the privacy of one's own home. It seems pretty clear that he had no conception of what it was like to be gay, and was therefore in no position to decide on the importance of the rights that he was deciding on. That is not a good way to interpret the law when, as in this case, the importance of a right is central to the question whether or not it is protected.

Empathy is simply understanding how things actually are in the real world. Whether this comes in the form of understanding that gay people are not straight or that women actually face discrimination in pay and that sometimes its not easy to spot or that diversity for its own sake has merit and so considering race may not be bad in all possible instances empathy is far from a bad characteristic in a jurist, it is essential. The law is not black and white michael steele. Please stop acting like it is and contributing to a misinformed discussion of the subject.

Read more...

Even Bad People Deserve Good Lawyers

The NYT has a piece up on the upcoming confirmation of Erik Holder as Attorney General. This piece focuses on the increased opposition from Republicans in the Senate who are "concerned" about the clients that Mr. Holder represented while in private practice. They seem to believe that there will be conflicts of interest so great that it prevents Holder from doing his job. Now we will put aside the fact that this comes from the GOP the party of corporations, big business, and corruption. Let sexamine exactly what the GOP is alleging here about lawyers role in society, the criminal justice system, and civil dispute resolution.

From the Times,

“We’ve had eight years of an administration that turned a blind eye to corporate criminals,” said Terry Collingsworth, a Washington lawyer who is suing Chiquita over the Colombian protection money and is facing Mr. Holder in the case. “We need someone with his level of experience and cachet to clean up the Justice Department. Yet I do have a concern and I sure hope that he doesn’t carry over his corporate defense practice into his approach to the job and how he handles these types of cases.”

When the National Football League was facing a legal and public-relations disaster in 2007 over a dogfighting scandal involving the Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, it turned to Mr. Holder to help navigate the maelstrom and represent the league. The pharmaceutical giant Merck tapped him as its lawyer in a Medicaid overbilling case that ended in a $671 million civil settlement. And Rod R. Blagojevich, the now-impeached governor of Illinois, picked him, albeit briefly, to investigate for the state a controversy over a casino development and its possible ties to organized crime.

Already, Mr. Holder’s brief association with Mr. Blagojevich has drawn scrutiny from Republicans, who are waging a more spirited campaign against Mr. Holder’s nomination than many had anticipated. Until now, most of the scrutiny has focused on controversies during the nominee’s time as deputy attorney general at the end of the Clinton administration, particularly his role in the pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich.

In responding to written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Holder made no mention of a 2004 announcement in which Mr. Blagojevich introduced him as a “special investigator” under a $300,000 contract with the state.

The appointment fell through, and Mr. Holder’s aides said his failure to mention the episode had been an oversight that was soon corrected. But some Republicans said they were troubled by the omission. Three Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee — Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Cornyn of Texas and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa — sent the governor’s office a Freedom of Information Act request last week seeking documents on the aborted agreement.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, sharply questioned Mr. Holder’s character and political independence in a speech last week on the Senate floor. Mr. Specter told reporters Friday that he wanted to see more information about Mr. Holder’s private practice, to assess whether he was up to the job of attorney general.

I am sure they are very excited about the Blago link. These Republicans were untroubled by the incompetent people who have filled every executive department under Bush. They were untroubled by the mess created at the DOJ under Bush where the law was bent and malformed to suit their purposes. They were perfectly fine with the unqualified lawyers and severely skewed priorities. Instead they have been full throated supporters and enablers of Bush and his ridiculous legal policies. Now they want to come out and attack Holder for representing clients who need a defense.

I have a big problem with those who attack defense lawyers. Under our system of laws everyone is entitled to a defense. Murderers and Rapists and Corporations are all entitled to a defense. This means that someone must be there to defend them. Someone has to do that. Our system cannot function without a proper defense. Otherwise those who were forced to become involved in the system would have no confidence in its ability to meet out justice. If you were accused of a crime you did not commit yet everyone thought you had you might not end up with a competent defense without good lawyers to defend you.

Even those people who have in fact committed crimes deserve a defense. In those cases we can keep the system honest. Make sure the prosecution proves their case Beyond a reasonable doubt and that they did not violate the laws to do so. Unless those accused of misdeeds can have a good defense the prosecution will simply run over the innocent as well as the guilty.

I differentiate lawyers who defend the guilty from ad execs or people like mark penn because corporations are not entitled to a good public image. we might function better if the general public was not being sold on a rehabbed image of an amoral corporation.

Everyone is entitled to good defense. If the republicans succeed in killing the Holder nomination because he represented some big corporate clients it would be a blow to our very foundation of justice.

Read more...