The Senate’s amnesty bill may be dead for now, but all across the country local government officials are crafting incentive programs for illegal aliens. Judicial Watch is leading a nationwide campaign against these programs, which are not only illegal, but also counterproductive. (And that is being kind.)

Take Southampton, New York, for example. Officials in the Village of Southampton are trying to use public funds to bankroll a day labor site for illegal aliens (a la Herndon, Virginia). Judicial Watch recently filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of residents from Southampton who don’t want their tax dollars used to subsidize illegal activity. Just like other taxpayer-funded day labor sites, the Southampton site violates both federal and state law.

Here’s an excerpt from our brief: “By creating and operating a taxpayer-funded marketplace for the employment of illegal aliens, the Village will become complicit in illegal activity. It also will encourage and induce illegal aliens to remain in the United States by making it easier for them to obtain employment and will aid and abet unlawful hiring. Such conduct violates both the letter and spirit of federal law. It should not be countenanced by the Court.”

The Village purchased land for the day labor site using monies from what is called the Community Preservation Fund (CPF), a public fund regulated by a detailed statutory scheme when used to purchase property. For example, the funds may only be used in a manner that is “compatible with the natural, scenic, historic, and open space character of such lands.”

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Law request with the Village to determine whether or not officials abided by state laws governing the use of the land. The Village claimed it had not a single document responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. Not a single document.

“The Village apparently failed to undertake even the most basic analysis of whether its proposed use of the protected land at issue is consistent with the requirements of the statute,” we argued in our brief. “Logic and common sense would appear to indicate that the use of CPF land as a hiring site for day laborers is inconsistent with the requirements governing the use of land purchased with CPF monies.”

Illegal day labor sites act as a magnet for illegals looking for work and worsens problems associated with this illegal activity. In Washington, D.C., for example, just months after spending millions to establish a day labor site, frustrated residents complained that the unruly illegal immigrants continued littering their neighborhoods, urinating on walls and sleeping under their porches.

If you want to read Judicial Watch’s amicus curiae brief, please click here. If you want to check out our other illegal immigration programs, click here.

Why the Battle over Judicial Confirmations is so Critical

The past few weeks have shown why it is important for conservatives to push for principled advocates of judicial restraint to the bench.

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Seattle and Louisville must stop using race as the factor in assigning children to schools. As conservative columnist George Will wrote this week, the unconstitutional process of assigning school children by race “allows white majorities to feel noble while treating blacks and certain other minorities as seasoning — a sort of human oregano — to be sprinkled across a student body to make the majority's educational experience more flavorful.” The High Court’s decision was the right decision, and represented a departure from a case in 2003 upholding race based preferences at the University of Michigan Law School.

In April of this year, the newly constituted Supreme Court also issued a decision upholding the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Again, the decision was 5-4. Just seven years ago, in 2000, the Supreme Court came to the exact opposite conclusion — ruling that a similar ban was unconstitutional if it did not involve an exception for the “health” of the mother.

So what was the difference in these decisions? Conservative Justice Alito is voting now, not the “centrist” Sandra Day O’Connor who, thankfully, retired from the Court in 2006. O’Connor used to represent the swing vote on the Court, and acted as a liberal/moderate politician rather than a restrained jurist. Now that role of swing voter has been passed to Justice Anthony Kennedy with mixed results.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia now represent the conservative block. Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsberg represent the liberal block. Kennedy is somewhere in the middle. But where? Tough to figure. He seems to choose sides based as much on personal whim than any consistent judicial philosophy. That is what makes his votes so anxiety inducing. And that is why we need one or two more conservative, dependable votes on the Supreme Court to make sure the Court remains true to its conservative, restrained roots.

The Left has trouble in advancing their agenda at the ballot box. For a long time, they have instead used the courts to do it for them. To combat this, conservatives must continue to push hard for conservative judicial nominees. The Left hasn’t given up the fight. The leftist smears and poor treatment of Bush judicial nominee Leslee Southwick is one example of this. Conservatives need to join the battle.

Court Adopts Judicial Watch Argument in National Security Case

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an important ruling last week in the National Security Agency wiretapping case (ACLU, et al., v. National Security Agency, et al., Appeal No. 06-2095/06-2140.) In an amicus brief filed last October, Judicial Watch, which previously uncovered a potential conflict of interest on the part of presiding Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, called upon the appellate court to vacate Judge Taylor’s ruling curtailing President Bush’s anti-terrorist wiretapping program. That is exactly what the Sixth Circuit did.

Judicial Watch’s key argument related to the issue of “standing.” Given that none of the plaintiffs (left-wingers and ACLU-types) could demonstrate that any of their conversations were actually intercepted by the government, their injuries are merely speculative and should not have been considered by the court. Judicial Watch noted:

The NSA [National Security Agency] has not disclosed any information about the identity of persons whose communications have been subject to the TSP [surveillance program] or the identity of persons whose communications will be subject to the TSP in the future…Without this essential information, the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that they have standing to assert their various claims arising under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Our brief carefully detailed the definitions in the FISA statute, including its definition of “electronic surveillance,” which is very specific. We argued that plaintiffs simply could not provide facts showing that they were electronically surveilled, as defined by the FISA law. The government, in defending its own program, did not focus on these important details. But Judicial Watch did.

Thankfully, the Sixth Circuit adopted Judicial Watch’s argument almost step by step, ruling that the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge the anti-terrorist program as they “have not shown, and cannot show, that the NSA’s surveillance activities include the sort of conduct that would satisfy FISA’s definition of ‘electronic surveillance,’ and the present record does not demonstrate that the NSA’s conduct falls within FISA’s definitions.”

It would seem obvious that before a court allows a statutory challenge to a government program, the court first determines whether the statute being used to challenge the program applies. One federal judge could not bother to do this (for liberal ideological reasons), but the Sixth Circuit got it right.

Bush Issues “Get out of Jail Free” Card to Libby

Last week President Bush issued “Executive Clemency” to convicted felon I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby commuting Libby’s 30-month jail sentence. You can probably guess my reaction. It was the wrong decision and it comes at a terrible time.

Here’s a quick review of the facts. Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in a CIA leak investigation involving Valerie Plame. There was nothing outrageous about the jail sentence, which was commensurate with sentences handed down to other criminals guilty of these types of serious crimes. And yet, the president chose to let him largely off the hook. Why? President Bush said he felt the sentence was excessive, but the more likely explanation is that Libby, who served as Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, is an insider with the right connections.

The American people are sick and tired of politicians stepping in and helping their friends avoid accountability for their crimes. How can we trust the system when there seems to be two standards, one for political insiders, and another for the rest of us? The Libby commutation undermines public confidence in our system of justice.

However disturbing the Libby commutation, it pales in comparison to the lawless abuse of the pardon authority by Bill Clinton.

Yet, here’s Hillary’s response to the president’s decision regarding Libby: "This particular action by the president is one more piece of evidence in their ongoing disregard for the rule of law that they think they don't have to answer to.”

And Bill’s response: “…They [Bush officials] believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”

It’s enough to make you choke.

Remember all those last minute Clinton pardons? In the waning days of his administration, Bill Clinton pardoned 140 criminals and commuted 36 sentences for crimes ranging from importing and distributing cocaine to armed bank robbery. (Here’s a complete list if you’ve got the time.) Denise Rich, the ex-wife of pardoned felon Marc Rich, gave Hillary cash and gifts, including campaign contributions, in the days leading up to the pardon. Hillary’s brothers, Hugh and Anthony, were also involved in schemes to “sell” presidential pardons to their criminal friends and associates, including a drug dealer.

The Bush White House correctly called the Clintons’ criticism “chutzpah,” and suggested that the Clinton pardons haven’t been fully investigated. This is disingenuous. The Bush administration fought Judicial Watch in court and pursued unprecedented privilege claims to protect Clinton pardon documents from being disclosed. Perhaps the Bush Justice Department could now redact the 900 blacked out pages they gave us on the Clinton pardons.

And then of course the Bush administration and congressional Republicans shut down any serious investigation of the Clinton pardons after Democrats threatened to highlight the fact that Libby, who was Vice President Cheney’s then-Chief of Staff, had also been the lawyer for the fugitive Marc Rich. (President Bush let Clinton-appointee Mary Jo White, the then-U.S. Attorney from New York, investigate any crimes associated with Clinton pardons. Unsurprisingly, her investigation bubbled a bit and died.)

Neither the Bush nor Clinton folks come out smelling too pretty from this whole pardon/commutation mess.

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, Inc. a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.