Jameel Jaffer Profile picture
Sep 19, 2022 9 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Here’s something quite amazing. The OLC wrote a powerful memo explaining why the Attorney General's independence is vital to our constitutional system. It reads as if it had been drafted this morning, in response to today’s political landscape, but …. /1 knightcolumbia.org/documents/jwhw…
It was written 40 years ago. Ted Olson, then the head of the OLC, wrote it in Feb 1982 for the then-AG, William French Smith, to describe the “responsibilities of the AG to the Constitution.” /2
The memo is one of more than five hundred OLC opinions that @knightcolumbia has obtained over the past months as a result of a settlement with the Justice Department. All of the opinions are here. /3 knightcolumbia.org/reading-room/o…
The most remarkable parts of this particular memo are about the independence of the AG, and about the responsibility of the AG to “establish justice.” “There is no more important goal in the Constitution or in the minds of the citizens of this nation,” the memo says. /4
The idea that the AG should be independent, and that s/he should establish justice, is hardly novel. Still, I’ve never seen the point made in such forceful terms: /5
The memo’s warning has not always been heeded, to state the obvious. Whether Olson was right about what the people will tolerate, or what Congress will do… well, I guess we’re still finding out. More: /6
I don’t know why this eloquent defense of the rule of law has been withheld from the public for four decades. Seems like it should be a reading assignment in every civics class. Here’s how it closes: /7
In sum: This is an extraordinary document, with important things to say about questions that have been especially salient over the past few years, and that are still salient now. It shouldn’t have been withheld for so long. /8
Disclosure: Ted Olson, who wrote the 1982 memo, is a @knightcolumbia board member. He didn’t have a role in the lawsuit mentioned above, and he hasn’t been involved in helping us review the memos we’ve obtained through the suit. /END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jameel Jaffer

Jameel Jaffer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JameelJaffer

Apr 25, 2024
The large-scale deployment of armed officers to suppress peaceful protest on college campuses around the country is a shocking development. This response to peaceful protest is an assault on free speech–and it is also deeply reckless. (1/x)
Of course in some instances it may be necessary for universities to involve law enforcement where criminal conduct is at issue, but bringing armed officers into conflict with peaceful protesters creates situations that can escalate quickly and unpredictably. (2/x)
Political leaders and others demanding a militarized response to peaceful protest should consider more carefully the possible consequences of their demands. (3/x)
Read 4 tweets
Dec 14, 2023
I don’t think Americans understand the extent to which the “foreign-intelligence exception” has hollowed out the Fourth Amendment. Most reporting about the current legislative debate is technical and incremental, and misses the forest for the trees. 1/
Here’s what's crucial: What was once an extremely narrow exception to ordinary constitutional principles has become, over time, a justification for warrantless surveillance on a staggering scale—not just of foreigners’ communications but of Americans’ communications too. 2/
With respect to Americans’ international communications, the Fourth Amendment has been made essentially a dead letter. 3/
Read 13 tweets
Sep 17, 2022
Over the past months, @knightcolumbia has obtained hundreds of previously secret Office of Legal Counsel opinions on issues ranging from civil rights to national security. Yesterday we published a long-withheld set of opinions about the War Powers Act. /1 nytimes.com/2022/09/16/us/…
We were able to obtain these opinions by taking advantage of a 2016 law that limits the government’s ability to rely on the “deliberative process” privilege to withhold documents that are more than 25 years old. /2
The result has been an incredible wave of disclosure about an office that has been as secretive as it has been powerful. There is absolutely no precedent for the disclosure of OLC opinions on this scale. /3
Read 6 tweets
Sep 16, 2022
Long awaited opinion from the Fifth Circuit in NetChoice v. Paxton is finally out. Let's see what it says ... techfreedom.org/wp-content/upl…
Not a promising opening.
It continues thus:
Read 20 tweets
Sep 15, 2022
This is actually a really hard set of questions. The government can't constitutionally coerce private publishers to censor speech. (There's a Supreme Court case about that.) But what should count as coercion is a really difficult question to answer.
For example, should the First Amendment be understood to prohibit a Senator from grilling a platform representative about the platform's editorial decisions? (@HawleyMO appears to think not.)
This is a good piece by @glakier about "informal government coercion and the problem of 'jawboning'" lawfareblog.com/informal-gover…
Read 6 tweets
Aug 14, 2022
The Espionage Act is a much-abused law that casts a long shadow over press freedom in this country, and that impoverishes and distorts public debate about national security, foreign policy, and war. But is the EA being abused here, in Trump’s case? /1
I don’t think so. Even a narrower EA—an EA that accounted for the First Amendment interests of whistleblowers, news organizations, and the public—would apply to the facts here, if the facts are as they’re asserted to be. /2
Trump isn’t a would-be whistleblower or publisher who decided to disclose classified information to inform the public about grave government misconduct. There’s no plausible First Amendment defense of his (alleged) actions. /3
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(