This is really wonderful work by the EFF. Legal opinions are not dangerous. They don't disclose the locations of undercover agents or anything like that. It's a contempt to the legal profession to keep them secret so that their reasoning cannot be scrutinized by courts. A lawyer's job is to make the best possible argument for her client's position, but if the court says she's wrong--and it's within the court's sole provenance to say what the law is--then she must acquiesce.
> The U.S. Department of Justice today filed a motion to dismiss its appeal of a ruling over legal opinions about Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the controversial provision of law relied on by the NSA to collect the call records of millions of Americans. As a result of the dismissal, the Justice Department will be forced to release a previously undisclosed opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concerning access by law enforcement and intelligence agencies to census data under Section 215.
By the government backing out, it _doesn't_ set legal precedent for the release or prevention of secret ruling. They lost a battle to continue the war.
Sometimes I wonder if the government should be required to follow all cases through to a court ruling, so that precedent can be established when appropriate.
Yes and no; There are already some rules governing case abandonment but we definitely don't need a government obligated to follow through every fool action it initiates.
