Part Of The Patriot Act Shot Down

jtwJGuevara writes "In a victory today for the ACLU, (and many Slashdotters I presume) the section of the Patriot Act which gives power to the FBI to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorist investigations has been ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge. Victor Marreo, the District Judge who made this ruling, states that the provision of the Patriot Act in question 'effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge.'"

Comments

Missed something...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

It should be pointed out that the FBI can still demand confidential financial records without this provision of the "Patriot" Act. Basically, without this provision the FBI just needs to provide a reason WHY to a judge to get similar access to the same records. (Previously, it was all hush-hush.)

Link to PDF of the ruling

[stinkfoot]

ACLU's site is getting hammered; the decision has also been posted on EFF's site:

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/ PATRIOT/20040929_NSL_Decision.pdf

(EFF's press release is here.)

Say what?

[ShatteredDream]

If you are a lawyer, then you should know that if this gets upheld on appeals and the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, then it stands...

This means something

[lothar97]

IAALT (I Am A Lawyer Too), and this judgement is binding in his federal court's jurisdiction. It might just be his part of district two (which I think covers NY), or it might be all of district two (which I think covers NY and some surrounding states). It is good law there, until either overruled by the Supremes, or made the Law of the Land by the Supremes.

Re:This means nothing

[spinfire]

Only within the appeals court's jurisdiction. For example, when the 9th Circuit Court rules that "Under God" is unconstitional, the precedent in that ruling only affects courts WITHIN the 9th circuit.

The loser needs to appeal it to the supreme court for it to affect the entire US.

This particular case only applies within the district court's jurisdiction. It hasn't been to an appeals court yet.

Voting records

[Anonymous Coward]

In the house that would be:

Baldwin, Barrett, Blumenauer, Bonior, Boucher, Brown (OH),Capuano, Clayton, Conyers, Coyne, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeFazio, DeGette, Dingell, Farr, Filner, Frank, Hastings (FL), Hilliard, Honda, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson, E. B., Jones (OH), Kucinich, Lee, Lewis (GA), McDermott, McGovern, McKinney, Meek (FL), Miller, George, Mink, Mollohan, Nadler, Ney, Oberstar, Olver, Otter, Owens, Pastor, Paul, Payne, Peterson (MN), Rahall, Rivers, Rush, Sabo, Sanchez, Sanders, Schakowsky, Scott, Serrano, Stark, Thompson (MS), Tierney, Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Velazquez, Visclosky, Waters, Watson (CA), Watt (NC), Woolsey, and Wu

and in the Senate: Feingold

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=200 1& rollnumber=398

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_ li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1& vote=00313

you know nothing

[Doc Ruby]

You were just as stupid yesterday, when you were an astrophysicist.