JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Friday, February 26, 2010

Congress approves Patriot Act extension absent new privacy measures
Sarah Paulsworth at 11:20 AM ET

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives [official website] on Thursday approved a measure to extend expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act [JURIST news archive] with no new privacy measures. Representatives voted 315-97 [Reuters report] in favor of the measure, which would allow federal authorities to conduct "roving" wiretaps, to compel the production of business, medical, and library records, and to track so-called "lone wolf" suspects who are not affiliated with an organization or country, so long as they are not US citizens. The vote came just one day after the Senate [official website] approved the extension [JURIST report]. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] criticized [press release] the extension, with Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office Laura Murphy saying:


Congress refuses to make reforming the Patriot Act a priority and continues to punt this crucial issue down the road. Once again, we have missed an opportunity to put the proper civil liberties and privacy protections into this bill. Congress should respect the rule of law and should have taken this opportunity to better protect the privacy and freedom of innocent Americans. We shouldn't have to live under these unconstitutional provisions for another year.

The extension will go into effect after approval from US President Barack Obama.

In September, the Obama administration asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to extend [JURIST report] the Patriot Act. The Judiciary Committee voted to reauthorize [JURIST report] the three provisions in question in October. In December, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] a constitutional challenge to the Patriot Act due to lack of standing. The US District Court for the District of Oregon [official website] had previously ruled that certain provisions of the act were unconstitutional [JURIST report].





Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 Papua New Guinea top judge arrested for sedition
2:40 PM ET, May 24

 Tunisia prosecutor seeks death penalty for ousted president
1:54 PM ET, May 24

 EU court rejects MasterCard challenge over fees
1:18 PM ET, May 24

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

'Crowing' About Iran Sanctions Should Stop
DOMESTIC
Daniel Joyner
UA School of Law

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org