The result of this fight is tremendous news, both for the trees and for industry. The activists put their lives on the line to defend the environment. They held on long enough for business to evolve to the point where it now sees the value of these trees beyond short-term profit.

This story has received lots of local coverage in Humboldt County. Here is a story with a good time line of events (starting in the 1860′s). For other Humboldt County coverage, look here, here, and here. The LA Times also had an elaborate story about these events.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia just sided with the Judiciary Committee and struck down the Absolute Privilege defense to the Committee’s subpoena.

The District Court’s Memorandum Opinion is well worth your reading. While you’re at it, read the cases cited in the opinion: Marbury vs Madison, from 1803, US vs Nixon, from 1974, and Boumediene vs Bush, from 2008.

Mr. Ali is a federal prisoner. When he was transferred from one prison to another, personal and religious items, including two copies of the Koran, were taken out of his bags. Mr. Ali sued for $177, the value of the property. The Department of Prisons claimed immunity from suit, taking the position that all federal law enforcement employees are free to mishandle, lose or even steal the personal property of prisoners, or anybody else.

Remember when President Clinton debated the meaning of the word “is?” In this decision, the justices debate the meaning of the word “any.” Here’s the language the justices struggled with. The exemption from tort liability at issue in the case provides that “any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer” will be immune from suit for “any claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty or the detention of any goods, merchandise or other property.”

The question presented was, did Congress mean to confer blanket immunity for property-related offenses on the part of any federal law enforcement officer? Or was the immunity limited to officers engaged in tax or customs work?