The Department of Justice Organization Chart

Because it seems suddenly appropriate.

- Click here for it.



For everything you could possibly want to know about the organization of the US government:

- The United States Government Manual.

From Lawfare: The Attorney General’s Role in the Clinton Email Mess

The Attorney General is the FBI director's boss.

The author suggests that she may bear some responsibility for recent events.

- Click here for the article.

Leave aside, for a moment, the question of whether Comey acted rightly or wrongly, a matter we addressed in depth on Saturday and on which we think his moves are not above criticism.

But there’s an elephant in the room alongside all these DOJ officials who are clucking about the FBI director’s having gone rogue: Attorney General Lynch, having been consulted ahead of time, let him do it.

Lynch could have ordered Comey not to send the letter. She declined to do that, and instead acted in a manner that minimized her own responsibility, as the head of the Justice Department, for what Comey did.

This is not the way the matter is playing in the press. Many news stories over the weekend, citing anonymous Justice Department sources, suggested that Comey acted contrary to Justice Department wishes. The idea is that the DOJ was somehow helpless to prevent an out-of-control investigator from meddling in a presidential campaign with actions undertaken either to gratify Comey’s ego and arrogate power and responsibility to himself, or to help Donald Trump—or because Comey just couldn’t help himself.

But that’s not how the Justice Department works, and that’s not what happened here. If you think what Comey did was beyond the pale, Lynch does not get to escape accountability for the action.

The wishes and preferences of the attorney general and deputy attorney general, such as they were, were, in fact, conveyed in a tepid, responsibility-eschewing way. The New York Times reports that “the Justice Department strongly discouraged [sending the letter to Congress] and told [Comey] that he would be breaking with longstanding policy.” It then adds that “Senior Justice Department officials did not move to stop him from sending the letter,” but “did everything short of it.”

Well, not everything, it turns out. Lynch, and her deputy, Sally Yates, did not demand that Comey hold off on sending the letter until they could make a decision for the Department about it. They did not pick up the phone or insist on a meeting to discuss the issue or even to express their views personally to Comey. “There was no direct confrontation between Lynch or Yates and Comey,” reports CNN. “Instead, the disagreements were conveyed to Comey by Justice Department staff, who advised the FBI chief his letter would be against department policy to not comment on investigations close to an election.”

From the Houston Chronicle: Feds file discrimination suit against owners of Midtown bar Gaslamp

For out look at civil rights.

- Click here for the article.

A Midtown bar that was accused of charging cover charges only to non-white patrons and turning other minorities away under the guise of "dress code violations" is now the subject of a federal discrimination lawsuit.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against the owners and operators of 360 Midtown, which was formerly Gaslamp, at the corner of Brazos and Hadley streets.

Scandal embroiled the bar last year when three black men made the racism allegations last year.

Brandon Ball, Dan Scarbrough and Ken Piggee — all attorneys — said that when they approached the doors of Gaslamp, the doormen immediately told them that to enter, they had to pay $20.

Deciding against it, the trio went to a nearby bar and later walked by Gaslamp.

"We're looking, and there are white people going in and getting their hands stamped," Ball told the Chronicle in September 2015. "They were going in and not paying anything."

The three sat and watched the door for some time, they said last year, watching white customers enter free of charge and minorities get turned away. They said they spoke with the others as they were turned away.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

It alleges that Ayman Jarrah and his company, Land Guardian Inc., discriminated against African-American, Hispanic and Asian-American patrons "by charging such persons a cover charge to enter the establishment, while not imposing such a charge on similarly situated white persons, and denying such persons the right to enter the establishment while admitting similarly situated white patrons."

From Reuters: Justice Dept. reviewing Supreme Court immigration decision: Lynch

More checks and balances. Supreme Court decisions are not the end of the story.

- Click here for the article.

The Obama administration is looking into whether it can challenge the Supreme Court's decision to block President Barack Obama's plan to spare millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Tuesday.

"We will be reviewing the case and seeing what, if anything else, we need to do in court," Lynch told Reuters in an interview.

Lynch did not say what legal options the Obama administration may pursue following a split decision by the Supreme Court justices last week that left in place a block on the executive action by a lower court.

She said any future executive actions Obama may take on immigration would be left to the White House.

From Slate: The Feds Are Investigating Whether the Maker of Budweiser Is Waging a Secret War on Craft Beer

An interest group tries to stifle competition.

- Click here for the article.

On Monday, Reuters reported that the Department of Justice was "probing allegations" that AB InBev has been attempting to stifle competition from craft brewers by choking off their access to distributors, thus making it harder to get their products to thirsty beer fans. If true, that would be something to get agitated about.

In the vast majority of U.S. states, beer makers are not allowed to sell directly to bars or grocery stores. Instead, they have to work through middlemen known as wholesalers, or distributors, who exist solely to market alcohol to America's retailers and watering holes. Known as the "three-tier-distribution system," the setup is basically an outmoded holdover from the early post-prohibition era that persists largely because wholesalers are major political donors. As archaic as the system may be, the bottom line is that without a distributor, a brewer can't really get its ales and lagers on shelves or on tap.

As the brewer of all things Bud, AB InBev already has plenty of heft with wholesalers. But in recent years, it has tried to slash its distribution costs by taking advantage of state laws that allow beer makers to purchase wholesalers outright so long as they operate independently. Thanks to a spate of recent acquisitions, Bud currently owns17 of the 500 companies that move its beer, with operations in cities including Boston, New York, and Los Angeles.

Craft brewers say that AB InBev is abusing its growing power over America's beer distribution network in two ways. First, they claim that some distributors purchased by AB InBev either stop selling products made by rival brewers outright, or seemingly stop making much of an effort to sell them. Second, they claim that AB InBev has pressured distributors it doesn't own "to only carry the company's products and end their ties with the craft industry." Conveniently, AB InBev has also purchased a number of well-loved craft brewers, such as Elysian and Goose Island, which it could readily offer to wholesalers as substitutes for other small brands.

The DOJ report on the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department.

The equal protection clause, along with the rest of the 14th Amendment, allows the national government the opportunity to review a variety of actions on the part of state and local governments.

Using the that authority, the Justice Department issued a report detailing such violations by the police department of Ferguson, Missouri.

- Remarks by the Attorney General.
- The DOJ Report.

Here's media coverage.

- Ferguson Police Routinely Violate Rights of Blacks, Justice Dept. Finds.
- Justice Department: Ferguson Police Biased Against Blacks, Scornful of Constitutional Rights.

The Organizational Chart for the Justice Department

To help with a future discussion of the federal bureaucracy:

Today in the Checks and Balances: the Senate Judiciary Committee questions Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution about this part of the process, but members of this committee have special jurisdiction over the Treasury Department. If approved by the committee, the nomination goes to the floor of the Senate. This part is mandated by the Constitution. Here's the relevant part:

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.

- Click here for historical detail from Findlaw.

The Hill reports that the nominee will likely sail through the process. The committee may simply be exhausted from fighting with the current Attorney General for so long. A breather may be in order.

Here's some - hopefully useful - background reading. This touches on issues we will cover soon enough in class.

- US Attorney General: This was one of the first executive positions established by Congress - the AG was the chief lawyer of the U.S. government and served bit the president and Congress. The first was Edmund Randolph. He served - along with the three others as members of Washington's first cabinet. The office was established in the same bill that established the process for the writ of mandamus that would be lead to the development of the power of judicial review.

- Senate Judiciary Committee: The committee was established in 1816. Click here for a history of the committee from its webpage and here for a look at the history of the committee system in the Senate. Until 1816, committees were informal and ad-hoc and members often met at theirs desks. The growth of the nation and the increased complexity of the law making process led the Senate to establish standing committees in 1816. The judiciary committee was one of the first. Aside from having oversight authority over the Justice Department it also considers nominations to the federal judiciary.

- Department of Justice: This was established in 1870 after the House Committee on the Judiciary recommended that the office of Attorney General be made full time and that the attorneys involved in various aspects of governance be put under one roof. These attorneys represented the national government in all legal matters and oversaw the prosecution of federal crimes.

From the Hill: Obama’s death penalty review risks backlash from the states

This fits  - in different ways - with both 2305 and 2306.

Here's the first of a handful of stories I'll post which related to the interaction between states and the national government, specifically areas where the national government has established standards that are then imposed on the states - or might possible impose on them if they in fact become policy.

From The Hill: Obama’s death penalty review risks backlash from the states.

The generations-old debate over capital punishment has shifted to Washington, where President Obama’s Justice Department has launched a national review of the death penalty.

Attorney Gen. Eric Holder’s inquiry, initiated last month following a mishandled execution in Oklahoma, is still in its early stages. The effort includes a look at state death penalty protocols, though its scope and ultimate implications are not yet clear.

But by ordering up the review, Obama is raising questions about what role, if any, the federal government should have on an issue that is traditionally the province of the states.

A few things to note in the story. It discusses national intervention in criminal justice policy, which traditionally is a reserved power of the states. It mentions that the reason this is done is because of racial bias in how the death penalty is carried out. The 14th Amendment allows the national government to prevent the states from treating people unequally before the law, but it is not specific about this requirement. Supreme Court cases often focus on determining whether national intervention is in fact justified, but this is after the fact. So this is a great contemporary example of the state of federalism in the United States.

The story mentions that if these recommendations are adopted, they will most likely be done by withholding national funds for state projects. You'll notice that this is referred to in the notes as fiscal federalism in some places. The national government enticing states to comply with certain measures monetarily.

It also points out the push back from some members of Congress on the proposals by the Justice Department. The story does not mention this, but the department's positions is most likely that existing law, in addition to the 14th Amendment, provide the constitutional basis for them to go forward with the recommendations. Congress has little ability to prevent them from doing this now, thought the states opposed to these measures could potentially challenge these in the courts, arguing the Justice Department over stepped its bounds. Consider this an example of checks and balances.

We are reminded us that the Supreme Court recently limited Florida's ability to execute people with low IQ's by overturning how they interpret the results of the test.

It also mentions a couple interest groups that have been involved in raising awareness of issues associated with the death penalty.

One is the Constitution Project, which helped develop the recommendations. This shows us how interest groups can influence public policy. You'll note that it is composed of former attorneys general and judges, which makes it an specially powerful group.

The other is Amnesty International, specifically its Death Penalty Abolition Program.

The groups points out that support for the death penalty in general has been in decline and - possibly as a result - the use of the death penalty in the United States is declining. If so, that strengthens the argument that shifts in public opinion have an impact on public policy, which is a staple of democracy.

I hope clarifies some of the class' content so far.

Note the blog tags below - they'll take you to past stories on each of the topics listed above.

Attorney General Eic Holder announces that the federal government will begin treating same sex and heterosexual couples the same

This development applies to a variety of topics we cover in 2305. One is civil rights, because it involves equal protection before the law as stated in the 14th Amendment. Another is the Supreme Court since it is up to the court to determine what the equal protection applies to and if this includes sexual orientation, which it did so in United States v. Windsor. And another is the separated powers and checks and balances since the executive branch is essentially responding to the implications of United States v. Windsor, a major court case of last year that gave some recognition to same sex marriages. Finally, this also applies to the bureaucracy's rule-making power. The Justice Department seems to be making these decisions on its own, based on the authority already granted to it.  There's also an element of interest group and electoral politics thrown into the mix.

Here's background from the New York Times:

The federal government will soon treat married same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples when they file for bankruptcy, testify in court or visit family in prison.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was preparing to issue policies aimed at eliminating the distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex married couples in the federal criminal justice system, according to a speech given at a Saturday event organized by a prominent gay-rights group.

“In every courthouse, in every proceeding and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages,” Mr. Holder’s said.

The changes were set in motion last year when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to refuse federal benefits to married same-sex couples, a ruling that Mr. Holder supported.

Gay-rights advocates welcomed the changes but had hoped Mr. Holder would use his address before the Human Rights Campaign to announce that the president would sign an order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

ScotusBlog provides more detail about the rationale behind the decision:

This effort, he told a dinner gathering of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, is intended “to give real meaning” to the Supreme Court’s decision last June in United States v. Windsor, striking down a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal marital benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

He did not spell out in full all of the measures his department will take, but did provide a few details on these initiatives:

** Each spouse in a same-sex marriage will gain the right in civil and criminal cases in court to decline to give testimony against the other spouse — the so-called “marital privilege” that is an exception to compelled testimony. That will apply even in states that would not extend the same right to same-sex couples under state law.

** In bankruptcy cases, same-sex couples will be allowed to file jointly for relief from their debts, some debts owed by one spouse or former spouse to another will not be nullified (“discharged,” in legal terms), and domestic support obligations — such as alimony owed to a former spouse — will have to be paid.

** Inmates in federal prisons who are married to a same-sex spouse will have equal rights and privileges, including visitation rights, inmate furloughs to be with a spouse during “a crisis,” a right of a spouse to be escorted to the funeral of an inmate spouse who dies, protection for letters and other communications between spouses, and early release of an inmate from a sentence or a reduction in sentence to allow the inmate to be with a spouse who has become incapacitated.

** If a benefits program is run by the Justice Department — for example, compensation for a spouse’s exposure to radiation and for the loss of a spouse during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 — same-sex couples will become entitled to those benefits.

** If spouse is or was as a police officer, firefighter, or other public safety officer and is killed or gravely injured in the line of duty, the surviving spouse will receive death benefits if the spouse dies and will receive educational benefits.

It does not appear that any of those guarantees of rights or benefits would add to what married same-sex couples had won in the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision, because the part of that law struck down by the Court imposed a ban on equality for same-sex couples in every federal program or activity.

But the new moves by Holder, and similar equality initiatives that a spreading variety of federal agencies have already adopted, are designed to translate that sweeping Court victory into everyday reality.

States free to legalize marijuana

The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration will not preempt state laws:

The Obama administration on Thursday said it will not stand in the way of Colorado, Washington and other states where voters have supported legalizing marijuana either for medical or recreational use, as long as those states maintain strict rules involving distribution of the drug.

In a memo sent Thursday to U.S. attorneys in all 50 states, deputy attorney general James M. Cole detailed the administration’s new stance, even as he reiterated that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

The memo directs federal prosecutors to focus their resources on eight specific areas of enforcement, rather than targeting individual marijuana users, which even President Obama has acknowledged is not the best use of federal manpower. Those areas include preventing distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of pot to cartels and gangs, preventing sales to other states where the drug remains illegal under state law, and stopping the growing of marijuana on public lands.

A Justice Department official said that Attorney General Eric Holder had called the governors of Colorado and Washington around noon on Thursday to inform them of the administration’s official stance.

 

The Justice Department sues Texas over voting rights for minorities.

From the NYT:

The Obama administration on Thursday escalated its efforts to restore a stronger federal role in protecting minority voters in Texas, announcing that the Justice Department would become a plaintiff in two lawsuits against the state.

The Justice Department said it would file paperwork to become a co-plaintiff in an existing lawsuit brought by civil rights groups and Texas lawmakers against a Texas redistricting plan. Separately, the department said, it filed a new lawsuit over a state law requiring voters to show photo identification.

In both cases, the administration is asking federal judges to rule that Texas has discriminated against voters who are members of a minority group, and to reimpose on Texas a requirement that it seek “pre-clearance” from the federal government before making any changes to election rules. In June, the Supreme Court removed the requirement by striking down part of the Voting Rights Act.

This is likely to last a while. Its a great example of the cultural and political conflict common between the state and the national government. This specific conflict stems from the weakening of the Voting Rights Act that followed the recently decided case of Shelby v. Holder. 2306's especially should take note.

The NAACP has joined the federal lawsuit.

Written Assignment #7 - GOVT 2305 - 11 week online class only

A jury in the state of Florida acquitted George Zimmerman of charges of murder and manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin - in case you've been living under a rock - but this may not be the end of the story.

Which give us an opportunity to tie recent subject matter - civil rights - to this case.

The NYT reports that the U.S. Justice Department is considering filing federal hate crimes charges against Zimmerman. The applicable law is the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (see Wikipedia entry here) which builds on federal hate crime law dating back to 1968. These laws allow the federal government to prosecute people who commit crimes based on a variety factors including a person's race.

Originally the laws only applied to those attempting to limit a "victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting." The Shepard Act expanded protected categories to sexual orientation, and removed the requirement that a federally protected activity be affected.

This suggests that the shooting of Martin may fall under the scope of this law, though that is not conclusive and the Justice Department has yet to determine whether there is enough evidence to prosecute.

Your writing assignment this week is to read through existing hate crime laws mentioned, review the facts associated with the shooting of Trayvon Martin and determine whether there is enough evidence to warrant a federal charge. What makes this a civil rights issue - or not? Consider both sides of the argument, be objective.

You know the requirements.

Oversight: the Justice Department and the House Judiciary Committee

C-Span covers Holder's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the investigation of the Associated Press. This is an oversight hearing, so it fits within the context of checks and balances which are designed to keep the branches separated.

Here's a link to the House Judiciary Committee by the way. Two members of the local congressional delegations are on the committee: Republican Ted Poe and Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Mr. Poe is the Vice-Chair of the committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security - which makes sense considering the importance of this issue to the local community. Here's a description of the subcommittee:

The Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: immigration and naturalization, border security, admission of refugees, treaties, conventions and international agreements, claims against the United States, Federal charters of incorporation, private immigration and claims bills, nonborder immigration enforcement, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

Ms. Jackson-Lee is also a member of that subcommittee as well as the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. Mr Poe is a member of that subcommittee as well. And here is a description of it:

The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: Administration of U.S. Courts, Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics, copyright, patent, trademark law, information technology, other appropriate matters as referred to by the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

For descriptions of standing committees - which we will be covering soon - click here. And for committees in general, click here. And - finally - click here for a description of subcommittees. All of this will be covered in upcoming lectures.






 

Inspector General reports on Fast and Furious

The report can be found here.

The Washington Post reports on it here:

Federal agents and prosecutors in Phoenix ignored risks to the public and were primarily responsible for the botched effort to infiltrate weapons-smuggling rings in the operation dubbed “Fast and Furious,” according to a report released Wednesday by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

The long-awaited report also criticized senior officials at the Justice Department and its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Washington for lax oversight of the attempt to block the flow of weapons to Mexico’s violent drug cartels. Many of the weapons later turned up at crime scenes in Mexico and the United States, including one where a U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed.

The Hill reports that House Republicans want to see structural changes at the ATF:

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz pleaded with lawmakers on Thursday to make major structural reforms at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in the wake of a botched gun-tracking operation.

“There were a serious lack of controls in place in both the U.S. attorney's office and ATF operation,” Horowitz said at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.

“There has to be a serious review and vetting of operations like this … and how to prevent that going forward, is watching carefully to make sure, in fact, the reforms we're all talking about aren't lost once the headlines of the report go away — that there is oversight.”

Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) have pledged to work on reforming the ATF and the U.S. attorney’s office to avoid repeating the mistakes that led to Operation Fast and Furious.

File this under congressional oversight and checks and balances.

House Votes to Hold Attorney General in Criminal and CIvil Contempt

From the Hill:

Seventeen Democrats bucked party lines and voted with Republicans to pass a criminal contempt resolution in a 255-67 vote. House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) pushed that resolution as part of his 16-month investigation into the botched "Fast and Furious" gun-tracking operation.

Only two Republicans voted "no" on the measure, while 65 Democrats recorded "no" votes and 108 Democrats didn't cast votes. Most of them were protesting the fact that the House GOP was holding the vote
The Washington Post reports that the Justice Department will not prosecute him:

The Justice Department declared Friday that Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to withhold information about a bungled gun-tracking operation from Congress does not constitute a crime and he won’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress.

The House voted Thursday afternoon to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt for refusing to turn over the documents. President Barack Obama invoked his executive privilege authority and ordered Holder not to turn over materials about executive branch deliberations and internal recommendations.

In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the department said that it will not bring the congressional contempt citation against Holder to a federal grand jury and that it will take no other action to prosecute the attorney general. Dated Thursday, the letter was released Friday.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the decision is in line with long-standing Justice Department practice across administrations of both political parties.

“We will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” Cole wrote.

Darryll Issa's possession of sealed wiretaps almost led to a criminal offense:

Issa entered the sensitive, and previously undisclosed, information into the Congressional Record on Thursday during the floor debate leading up to the passage of his resolution placing Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

The powerful Republican might be protected from what otherwise would be a criminal offense under Congress’s speech and debate clause because the remarks were written into the public record during chamber proceedings.

From Reason: Texas Man Faces 10 Years in Prison for Recording Cops

Scary but true:

An Iraq War veteran faces ten years in prison after snapping photos of police making an arrest.

Antonio Buehler was pumping gas last New Year’s Eve when he caught sight of two Austin, TX cops “manhandling a woman” during a DUI investigation. Buehler, a resident of Austin, pulled out his cell phone and began taking pictures of the arrest. This is where the trouble began.

According to a Pixiq.com article by Carlos Miller, a veteran cops and cameras journalist, police then stormed over to Buehler and accused him of interfering with the investigation. When Buehler stood his ground, the cops argued that the Texan was “getting in [their] faces”. In the police report, Officer Pat Oborski claims Buehler proceeded to “spit in [his] face”. This, of course, gave officers the right to put Buehler under arrest for harassment of a public servant—a third degree felony charge.

What Officer Oborski didn’t realize, however, is that other cameras were rolling during the altercation with Buehler. And video shot by a witness standing across the street show a different scene than what was painted in the police reports.

The right to record has been a subject of major debate recently. For 2301s might want to note this:

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department took an important stand last week, declaring that citizens have a First Amendment right to videotape the actions of police officers in public places and that seizure or destruction of such recordings violates constitutional rights.

We recently discussed this agency in our lecture on civil rights.

Fast and Furious for Dummies

Here's a quick look at the program at the heart of this particular conflict between Congress - or at least the House Oversight Committee's chair Darryl Issa - and the Obama Administration - or at least the Attorney General Eric Holder.

Gunrunning programs have been around for a while apparently.

And here's an analysis of the current conflict (the checking and the balancing and the ambition counteracting ambition) in light of past conflicts between Congress and the executive over similar matters. This ain't this first time and it ain't the last. tha author suggests that if the House wants to get at Holder, it should impeach him. That's what its for. A contempt citation is cheap talk.

Are online publishers guilty of violating anti trust laws?

The Justice Department is set to find out. It is suing publishers (in the United States District Court for the Southern District in New York) for price fixing.

Anti trust laws - which have been a staple of national power since passed of the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts - allow the national government to break apart real or budding monopolies, or any activity which leads to uncompetitive practices.

The Justice Department is investigating whether this has happened in the e-book market. Did Apple secretly force- or persuade - other publishers to not under price its books? But this effort might allow Amazon, which controls 60% of the market, to expand its influence over it by reducing its prices far below what other publishers can command.

Justice Department investigates Florida shooting

2301 - 16 week students are looking at civil rights this week and in class yesterday I mentioned a couple of federal agencies that handle civil rights disputes, including the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. The division is in the news today since it announced it will investigate the recent killing of an African American teenager by a neighborhood watch volunteer.

Local law enforcement has refused to arrest the volunteer, which lead to calls for the national government to become involved. The Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division has jurisdiction over the matter. What makes this - potentially - a civil rights matter is the racial element and the question about whether the killing was motivated by race. This coupled with the fact that local and state authorities seem uninterested in pursuing the matter.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus want this pursued as a hate crime.

Update: A Grand Jury in Florida will investigate the case.

From the New Republic: What a Florida Teenager's Death Tells Us About Being Black in America.