Legal and Political Reform

SCORING A LANDMARK CIVIL LIBERTIES VICTORY

Heller Ehrman is co-counsel in a national class-action lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against AT&T for collaborating with the National Security Agency in allegedly data-mining telephone and Internet communications. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, asks the Court to declare the practices unlawful, to issue an injunction forbidding them and to award damages to the class plaintiffs.

The suit arises from events that were originally reported by the press in December 2005 and have more recently been the subject of significant media attention. The complaint alleges that since at least 2001, the United States government has implemented a program that intercepts and analyzes the telephone and Internet communications of large numbers of Americans. The complaint alleges that the government uses computers to data-mine this information, scanning the contents of communications “for particular names, numbers, words or phrases.” According to the complaint, this is done without judicial approval and violates the statutory and constitutional rights of the named plaintiffs and other class members.

In May, the United States government sought to intervene in the case and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of the “state secrets” privilege, contending that litigation of these issues could reveal state secrets and harm national security. A hearing was held before U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker on June 23, and less than a month later, Judge Walker filed a dramatic 72-page opinion denying the Government’s motion to dismiss the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s illegal surveillance case against AT&T on the grounds that any further litigation would reveal privileged “state secrets.” The verdict represents an extraordinary victory for Heller Ehrman and the plaintiff class in defense of civil liberties. In past cases, courts have accepted with near unanimity the Government’s assertions of the state secrets privilege. The current administration has successfully asserted the privilege to dismiss cases concerning the Government’s alleged “extraordinary rendition” program, and was confident that it could use the privilege to clear federal court dockets of the 35 cases currently pending which concern the alleged illegal surveillance program.

Heller Ehrman’s Ethnic Diversity Committee worked to bring this panel discussion together and plans to have similar events on issues that affect communities of color and diversity.

ROOSEVELT INSTITUTION

In early 2005, Heller Ehrman was approached by several Stanford University undergrads to help create The Roosevelt Institution, a student-run public policy “think tank” which now has chapters in over 40 of the country’s leading universities. The Roosevelt Institution provides the organizational infrastructure to get student ideas into the public discourse. Students research important public policy issues, such as health care, international security, education and poverty, and then present and publish white papers and articles about those issues in the Institution’s journals, on its website and at local, regional and national conferences. As more students join the Roosevelt Institution and begin to express their views through research, writing and publishing, their influence on public policy is growing. The work of the Roosevelt Institution has been recognized in articles in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Nation and other major publications. Heller Ehrman provides all of the Institution’s legal services, including assisting in forming as a not-for-profit organization, obtaining tax-exempt status and resolving labor and employment, real estate, copyright and trademark issues.

A VICTORY FOR CALIFORNIA’S FOSTER CHILDREN

Heller Ehrman serves as co-counsel for the plaintiff class of California foster children in a three-year-old class-action lawsuit known as Katie A. v. Bonta, which challenges the longstanding practice of confining abused and neglected children in costly hospitals and large group homes instead of providing mental health services that would enable them to stay in their own homes and communities. On March 14, 2006, the United States District Judge A. Howard Matz issued a landmark decision, ordering the State of California to provide mental health services that will enable thousands of foster children to avoid institutional care.

The court heard from the leading experts that two key services (known as “wraparound services” and “therapeutic foster care”) when provided in a family setting, “can turn around a child’s negative trajectory and produce virtual miracles.” In addition, in his order granting a motion for preliminary injunction, the judge found “substantial evidence” that the two services (which he instructed the state to provide) “actually save the State money, compared to alternatives involving institutionalization.” Judge Matz set a 120-day time frame for the state to comply.

Attorneys and staff in our Los Angeles office have been involved in this case from the beginning, working with a consortium of state and national public-interest groups including Western Center on Law & Poverty, Protection & Advocacy, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Center for Youth Law and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2002

Heller Ehrman has been an integral member of a multi-firm pro bono coalition since mid-2002 to address issues arising out of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA"), the so-called "McCain Feingold" law.  Since 2003, the firm represented Senators McCain and Feingold and several other members of Congress in the successful defense of the constitutionality of BCRA in a series of lawsuits brought by opponents of the law.  This culminated in a ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court which upheld virtually all provisions of BCRA.  Heller Ehrman then served as counsel in litigation challenging the Federal Election Commission’s regulations implementing BCRA’s requirements, on the ground that the regulations undermined BCRA.  In July 2005, the United States Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a district court decision agreeing with our position and invalidating many of the  regulations issued by the FEC.  The D.C. Circuit of Appeals denied rehearing en banc by a very lopsided margin, and the Commission has decided not to pursue an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Commission has promised to move "aggressively" to fix its rules as soon as possible.  Heller Ehrman’s involvement in this matter is continuing.