Supreme Court Wrap-up:

Energy Policy Task Force: The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether Vice President Dick Cheney must release White House papers about the energy policy task force he headed two years ago. The investigative wing of Congress, the General Accounting Office (GAO) attempted to obtain related information, the Vice President sued, and the lower court put forth a dubious argument that GAO didn't have standing because Congress had to be directly involved. This ignore a law that gave them the power to investigate, the fact Congress was informed (including relevant committee heads), and did not object. Anyway, partly because the Republicans were now fully in power in Congress and pressured them to do so, the GAO ended the lawsuit. I discuss the matter in more detail here.

Meanwhile, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch (yes, the same group that targeted President Clinton) were trying to get similar information. The lower court in this case held that they had the right to see some of the information. Thus, the Vice President directly raised an issue only brought up in passing in the GAO opinion (decided on other grounds), namely, executive privilege. This is the principle that the executive branch has a certain degree of privacy so that it can do business without someone always potentially looking over their shoulders. It is not absolute and was a weaker argument when legislative oversight was at issue (the GAO case). And, at some point, there must be limits when private organizations are involved, especially when it is being used in a partisan way.

But, the broad attempt by the administration to uphold secrecy, even when outside groups potentially served a major role in policy making crosses the line. I fear the nuances of the law giving outside groups a right to look at the information sought as well as concern for executive privilege as a protection from excesses of said groups (one case this term involves a lawyer who wanted autopsy photos of Vincent Foster because he feels there was a government cover-up) will allow the administration yet again to stonewall. Private groups these days often serve an important role in keeping the government and private business (e.g. civil rights cases) honest. Even though the GAO's investigation should have been able to cover this ground, if we are left with the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch to do part of the job for them, so be it. And the case provides a possible avenue to clarify the rules for future efforts of the kind -- important case.

Guilty By Association: Maryland v Pringle involved drugs (in an armrest) found pursuant to a traffic stop, after a consensual search probably growing out the officer spying a wad of money in the glove compartment while the driver took out his license and registration. All three of the inhabitants denied knowledge, they all were taken into custody, and Pringle eventually confessed (and got ten years). The Maryland Supreme Court reversed because it held there was no probable cause to hold that he personally had control of the drugs, so the seizure of Pringle was unreasonable as well. The US Supreme Court unanimously reversed in a ten page decision largely concerned with boilerplate (the facts of the case took about half of the brief decision) ... the police had probable cause to take them all.

This is troubling stuff. The presence of $763 in the glove department and drugs not in plain view but still accessible to all occupants is all that was needed to take into custody two people who were ultimately not charged. The Court argued that the fact they all denied knowledge was a factor in their decision. It is totally conceivable that one or both of those ultimately not charged actually did not know anything. If they did, technically, they could be charged as accessories. Anyway, it surely is likely in some cases not everyone in a car will know contraband is in it, even if they had access to it in some fashion (let's say it's under the seat cushions). Tough luck to them ... and not one justice dissented or even warily concurred to this practically dismissive opinion.

This is totally outrageous.