Eminent Domain

I decided to skip posting about the substance of the recent ACLU et. al v National Security Agency decision. Everyone and their mother has beaten me to it because of my vacation. There is a new, very interesting development in the case though. The judge who ruled on the case, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, may have a serious conflict of interest problem.

By way of How Appealing, here is the report from Judicial Watch...

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government's warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor's financial disclosure statements.

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a "recent grant" of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

According to the CFSEM website, "The Foundation's trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis."

Judicial Watch is calling for an investigation about this possible conflict of interest. An already controversial ruling could get even more controversial.