Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced that it sent a July 30 letter to all United States Senators asking them to oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. The opposition letter, signed by Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, reads in part:

"This letter is to state (Judicial Watch's) opposition to the elevation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Judge Sotomayor's record is troubling in many respects, to include the following:

• Judge Sotomayor repeatedly made prejudiced and biased comments with regard to race and sex.
• Judge Sotomayor has expressly rejected the notion that courts should be impartial.
• Judge Sotomayor expressed support for the use of international law in deciding questions arising under the United States Constitution.
• Judge Sotomayor's activity at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund suggests she personally supports a radical, judicial activist agenda that includes opposition to any restrictions on abortion rights and support of taxpayer funding for abortion.
• Judge Sotomayor wrongly dismissed significant constitutional questions concerning the Second Amendment, racial discrimination, and property rights with summary or cursory opinions.
• Her confirmation hearing testimony on the all the above points was, at best, disingenuous. Indeed, a July 19 Washington Post editorial supportive of Judge Sotomayor acknowledged that some of her testimony was 'unconvincing and at times uncomfortably close to disingenuous.'

"Judge Sotomayor's advocacy as a judge for a race-based ideological agenda is problematic enough, but elevating an individual with such a record to the Supreme Court will tend to undermine the American people's confidence in the fair administration of justice by the High Court.

"Accordingly, on behalf of the membership of Judicial Watch, I urge you to oppose Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

"On a related matter, we urge you to consider ways to reform the Senate's handling of presidential judicial nominations. The current confirmation process is unnecessarily political and serves to undermine Americans' faith in a fair and independent judiciary. Judicial Watch stands ready to work with you on ways to ensure a more rational approach to the Senate's constitutional 'advice and consent' role in judicial nominations."

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a "Petition for Review" with the California Supreme Court in its taxpayer lawsuit against Special Order 40, a Los Angeles Police Department illegal alien sanctuary policy (Sturgeon v. Bratton, et al., Case No. BC351646). Judicial Watch's taxpayer lawsuit argues that Special Order 40 violates federal immigration law as well as California State law. The California Court of Appeal ruled on June 17, 2009 that the lawsuit could not proceed to trial.

Judicial Watch asked the California Supreme Court to review two specific questions in its petition, filed on July 27.

First, Judicial Watch asked the California Supreme Court to settle the important question of whether federal law preempts California Penal Code 834b, which states, in part, that "Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (now Immigration and Customs Enforcement) regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration law." The statute also prohibits local government entities from limiting the cooperation between local law enforcement officers and federal immigration officials.

The Court of Appeal failed to apply Penal Code 834b, finding that the provision, approved by voters in 1994 as part of Proposition 187, was preempted by federal law as "an impermissible regulation of immigration."

"It is ironic, to say the least, that a statute enacted by California voters to promote cooperation and information sharing between state, local, and federal law officials on immigration matters would be dismissed so easily as an impermissible regulation of immigration when federal law so obviously seeks to promote these very same goals," Judicial Watch states in its petition. (The federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 promotes the free flow of information between state and local officials and federal immigration authorities.)

In fact, earlier this year, the California Supreme Court found that a California statute allowing juveniles to be declared wards of the court based on violations of federal immigration laws was not preempted by the Supremacy Clause or any other federal law. The Court had recognized that "a regime of cooperative federalism, in which local, state, and federal governments may work together to ensure the achievement of federal criminal immigration policy."

Second, Judicial Watch is challenging the appellate court's decision to force a taxpayer challenging an administrative policy to satisfy the same heavy burden as a person bringing a "facial" challenge to a statute or ordinance. A "facial" challenge requires a litigant to prove that an ordinance or statute is always and under all circumstances unconstitutional. As Judicial Watch notes in its complaint, there is no statute or ordinance at issue in this lawsuit.

"Special Order 40 and the even more restrictive, unwritten practices and procedures by which the LAPD has implemented Special Order 40 most definitely are not statutes, ordinances or legislative enactments," Judicial Watch noted in its complaint. Considering Judicial Watch's taxpayer lawsuit as a "facial challenge" is inappropriate, therefore, "because, by definition, a practice does not have a 'face.' This is especially the case in legal challenges to unwritten practices such as Plaintiff has asserted here. There simply is no text to be analyzed."

"Special Order 40 is a dangerous and unlawful 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that puts law-abiding citizens at risk. There is no question Special Order 40 frustrates the free flow of communication between law enforcement officers and federal immigration officials. This is a clear violation of federal immigration law," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "We hope the California Supreme Court considers the serious legal issues at the center of this taxpayer lawsuit."

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Massachusetts Public Records Request with the Cambridge, MA, Police Department regarding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following records:

Any audiotapes or videotapes recorded prior to, during, or after the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates on July 16, 2009.

On July 16, Sergeant James Crowley responded to a 911 phone call from a passerby reporting two men attempting to force open the door at Professor Gates' Harvard Square home. Professor Gates claims that he had just returned from a trip to China and his front door was jammed. He asked his driver to help him force it open.

According to Sergeant Crowley, after approaching the house, Professor Gates was belligerent and refused to provide identification when requested. Sergeant Crowley told the press he arrested Gates for disorderly conduct after the professor followed him outside the home "continuing [his] tirade even after being warned multiple times, probably a few more times than the average person would have gotten."

The Fraternal Order of the Police has expressed its support of Sergeant Crowley, who was previously selected to teach a course on racial profiling for a police training academy.

According to Professor Gates, Sergeant Crowley was disrespectful from the beginning, refusing to identify himself or his provide his badge number. Supporters of Professor Gates, including President Obama, suggested his arrest was racially motivated. The President, noting that he did not have all the facts, also said at a press conference that he thought the police acted "stupidly."

The disorderly conduct charges against Gates were dropped the day after the arrest.

"President Obama threw the race card on the table after the Gates arrest without having all of the facts. Uninformed, inflammatory comments on this matter by President Obama have widened racial division and undermined the rule of law. Judicial Watch seeks to help the public come to an informed opinion on the controversy," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced that it filed yesterday a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to obtain documents related to congressional briefings on "enhanced interrogation techniques" (Judicial Watch v. Central Intelligence Agency, Case: 1:09-cv-01352). Judicial Watch seeks documents detailing CIA briefings involving House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and/or her staff. Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request with the Central Intelligence Agency on May 15 seeking the following information:

1. Records detailing dates when the CIA briefed congressional leaders (to include, but not limited to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and/or her aide, Michael Sheehy) on matters relating to "enhanced interrogation techniques" and/or "harsh interrogation techniques" and suspected and/or known terrorists.
2. Briefing materials presented to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and/or her aide, Michael Sheehy, relating to "enhanced interrogation techniques" and/or "harsh interrogation techniques" and suspected and/or known terrorists.
3. Records detailing the names of all Members of Congress (and/or Congressional Aides) briefed on "enhanced interrogation techniques" and/or "harsh interrogation techniques" and suspected and/or known terrorists.
4. Records and briefing materials from a reported September 4, 2002 briefing of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (and/or her aide Michael Sheehy) concerning waterboarding detainees.
5. Records detailing all instances when the CIA has provided briefings to Members of Congress under the provisions of the National Security Act from September 11, 2001 to present.

On June 23, the CIA notified Judicial Watch that it would not be able to respond to the FOIA request within the mandated 20 working days but failed to indicate when a response would be forthcoming. The CIA suggested it would respond "as soon as we can."

In April 2009 Speaker Pelosi admitted she was briefed on the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," including waterboarding, but said that the CIA did not tell her that the techniques had already been used. The CIA contradicted Pelosi's claim, pointing to a briefing they held with the speaker on September 4, 2002 and a subsequent briefing to her top staffer. In response to the controversy, Speaker Pelosi stated the CIA was lying about the briefings and "mislead(s) Congress all the time." Judicial Watch filed its FOIA request to get to the truth in the matter.

"I suspect the Obama administration is stonewalling the release of these documents to protect Speaker Pelosi from further embarrassment," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This FOIA lawsuit shows, yet again, that Obama's promises of transparency were nothing more than empty rhetoric."

On July 14, Judicial Watch filed a separate FOIA lawsuit against the CIA to obtain records from the Office of former Vice President Cheney related to the results of the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" techniques.