AIPAC Court Denies Amicus Standing to Reporters Committee
The judge who presides over the prosecution of two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for allegedly mishandling classified information has rejected a request from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to present an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief on the profound constitutional concerns raised by the case.
“Defendants are ably and energetically represented by counsel experienced in all facets of the case, including the constitutional challenge,” wrote Judge T.S. Ellis, III.
“This prosecution is not the appropriate procedural context in which various elements of society should debate the constitutional validity or wisdom of [the Espionage Act],” the Judge wrote.
See his February 27, 2006 order.
More information on the Reporters Committee view of the case may be found here.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.