BREAKING: Federal Judge Rules Warrantless Spying Unconstitutional; Orders Halt

America may be finding its way back just yet. From the world of checks and balances-

AP: Judge nixes warrantless surveillance

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion...

This is a great- if possibly temporary- victory for democracy and the rule of law in America.

For the legal-detail-minded, you can read Judge Taylor's opinion here. In it, she states, "In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained." You can also read her injuction against the program here, in which she "enjoins the administration from 'directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program'."

Glenn Greenwald read the opinion and broke it down. Key parts for me:
(a) it rejected the "state secrets" assertion in these cases because the program has already been publicly confirmed by the administration (this is a reaffirmation of the ruling Judge Walker made last month); (b) it ruled that warrantless eavesdropping violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures; (c) it ruled, using Supreme Court post-9/11 precedent, that the Executive's powers in the national security area do not grant him extraconstitutional power, and that courts are empowered under our Constitution to enjoin and restrict the exercise even of national security powers, even in times of war, when the President's conduct violates the law or the Constitution; (d) it rejected the administration's claim that the AUMF constitutes authorization to eavesdrop in violation of FISA, noting that FISA is an extremely specific statute while the AUMF says nothing about eavesdropping; (e) it rejected the Bush theory on presidential power, noting 'there are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution'; and finally (f) given all those findings, issued a permanent injunction enjoining the Bush administration from continuing to eavesdrop in violation of FISA.

More from Greenwald on the ruling's longevity and consequences- here and here. One thing the legal scholars like Greenwald and Jack Balkin are saying is that while the ultimate conclusions are accurate, the arguments left some holes-- enough to guarantee an appeal. The Bush administration is expected to appeal, of course, and has asked to delay the halt.

Here's a suggestion for the President- get the warrants! Stop violating our Constitution! Problem solved!

Finally, the Wonkette gang- snarky as always- don't believe the NSA would listen anyway.

[PS- In an unrelated blog post written yesterday, arch-conservative Powerline blogger John Hinderaker writes of the possibility of a Feingold candidacy in 2008 brought on by the Democratic party 'moving left'. In it, he writes that no Democratic president "would stop eavesdropping on international conversations among terrorists", implying that's something anyone has argued for. This willfull ignorance of the very nature of this scandal is a success for Karl Rove, who took a major constitutional conflict on the limits of presidential power and turned it into a fake debate with fictional Democrats who don't want to spy on terrorists. I ranted on the same thing last week when Bill O'Reilly declared the U.K. arrests a victory for President Bush's argument for warrantless wiretapping, even after noting that warrants were filed for that surveillance! Hinderaker also asserts that he "expect[s] a Democratic administration to be less scrupulous than the Bush administration has been in respecting civil liberties". Yes, the same Feingold who wanted to censure President Bush (and was called a traitor and terror-sympathizer by the Powerline crowd for his efforts)- and who has just now released a statement of support for the ruling- would be worse than Bush in his mind. Not that these people thought Bush did anything wrong; in fact, they've been arguing against the civil liberty argument- a 'luxury' in 'wartime'- for years. Proof again that there is no logic or continuity in the mind of the American Republican.

Far-right screeching on the ruling begins- here/here. RNC campaign ads surely follow soon.]