WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Two U.S. prosecutors in the corruption case of the late Alaska Senator Ted Stevens face suspensions without pay for engaging in reckless professional misconduct by failing to disclose evidence that could have helped him, the Justice Department said on Thursday.

A report by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics office, concluded the prosecutors in several instances failed to disclose the evidence to the defense in violation of their obligations, but their actions had not been intentional.

One prosecutor, Joseph Bottini, faces a 40-day suspension without pay while the other one, James Goeke, faces a 15-day suspension without pay, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said in a letter to Congress summarizing the findings.

It marked the latest embarrassing disclosure for the Justice Department over its botched handling of the Stevens case.

A separate report released in March by a court-appointed independent investigator concluded prosecutors withheld and concealed information from defense lawyers that included witness statements, key details that could have undermined prosecutors’ star witnesses and allowed false testimony to be presented during the 2008 trial.

That report criticized the Justice Department’s failure to properly supervise the trial team and said prosecutors covered up information that their chief witness, Bill Allen, had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old prostitute.

CASE DISMISSED

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the length of lawful residence in the United States by immigrant parents cannot be considered by the federal government in deciding whether their children should be deported.

The justices unanimously handed a victory to the Obama administration and overturned a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that immigrants who entered the United States as children may count their parents’ years in this country to satisfy the residency requirements.

Under federal immigration law, people who have been lawful permanent residents in the United States for at least five years and have lived continuously in the country for seven years can seek leniency from the government when facing deportation.

The ruling was unrelated to a more controversial pending immigration case involving the Obama administration’s challenge to Arizona’s tough crackdown on illegal immigrants. A decision in that case is expected by the end of next month.

One case decided Monday involved Carlos Gutierrez, a Mexican citizen who became a lawful permanent residence in 2003 when he was 19. He was stopped at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2005 with three young illegal immigrants in his car and the U.S. government began procedures to deport him for immigrant smuggling.

He argued his father’s immigration status and years of residence in the United States could be taken into consideration to meet the eligibility requirements to avoid deportation. The Supreme Court disagreed.

The other case involved Damien Sawyers, a Jamaican citizen who became a lawful permanent resident in 1995 at the age of 15. The government began deportation proceedings against him after his conviction for having a controlled substance in 2002 and for cocaine possession in 2005.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that children conceived through in vitro fertilization after the death of a parent were not automatically entitled to survivor benefits under the Social Security law.

The justices unanimously sided with the Obama administration and overturned a U.S. appeals court’s ruling for a New Jersey woman who is seeking benefits for her twins conceived by artificial insemination after her husband’s death.

The high court case pitted new reproductive technologies against longstanding requirements to qualify for child survivor benefits under the Social Security Act that date back to 1939.

Government lawyers said the Social Security Administration has received more than 100 claims for survivor benefits by posthumously conceived children, with claims increasing significantly in recent years.

The ruling was a defeat for Karen Capato, who sued in federal court in New Jersey after her request for Social Security benefits for her twins had been denied.

In 1999, her husband, Robert Capato deposited sperm at a fertility clinic after being diagnosed with esophageal cancer. He died in March 2002, and his wife then underwent in vitro fertilization. She gave birth to twins in September 2003.

The Social Security Administration says eligibility for benefits depends partly on whether the applicable state law would allow a posthumously conceived child to inherit property in the absence of a will. The Supreme Court agreed.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an Obama administration appeal arguing that attorneys, journalists and human rights groups have no right to sue over a law making it easier for U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on foreign communications.

The justices said they would review a ruling by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the plaintiffs have the legal right to proceed with their challenge to a 2008 amendment to the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The section at issue allows intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on overseas communications, including phone calls and e-mails, more widely and with less judicial oversight than in the past.

The change meant the U.S. government does not have to submit to a special judge an individualized application to monitor a non-American overseas. Instead, the U.S. attorney general and the director of national intelligence can apply for mass surveillance authorization from the judge.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the attorney general and the director of national intelligence in 2008 in challenging the law as unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs argued they had the legal standing to proceed with their lawsuit because they suspected their communications with people abroad were being monitored.

They said they had reasonable fear of injury from the surveillance and had to take costly, burdensome steps to protect the confidentiality of their communications.

WASHINGTON, May 21 (Reuters) – The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an Obama administration appeal arguing that attorneys, journalists and human rights groups have no right to sue over a law making it easier for U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on foreign communications.

The justices said they would review a ruling by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the plaintiffs have the legal right to proceed with their challenge to a 2008 amendment to the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The section at issue allows intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on overseas communications, including phone calls and e-mails, more widely and with less judicial oversight than in the past.

The change meant the U.S. government does not have to submit to a special judge an individualized application to monitor a non-American overseas. Instead, the U.S. attorney general and the director of national intelligence can apply for mass surveillance authorization from the judge.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the attorney general and the director of national intelligence in 2008 in challenging the law as unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs argued they had the legal standing to proceed with their lawsuit because they suspected their communications with people abroad were being monitored.

They said they had reasonable fear of injury from the surveillance and had to take costly, burdensome steps to protect the confidentiality of their communications.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide how broadly to apply its two-year old ruling that immigrants have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and must be told about possible deportation stemming from a guilty plea.

The justices said they would consider whether its March 31, 2010, ruling would apply retroactively to previous convictions or would only to convictions after that date. Defense lawyers said in their Supreme Court appeal that the issue has profound practical significance.

In its original ruling, the Supreme Court decided by a 7-2 vote that an immigrant’s constitutional right to effective counsel was violated when his attorney mistakenly told him he could plead guilty to drug charges without being deported.

Immigrant rights advocates said at the time the decision could potentially affect thousands of immigrants every year.

Since the decision, U.S. courts of appeals have issued conflicting rulings on whether the high court’s ruling applied retroactively. The U.S. Justice Department told the Supreme Court the issue involved a recurring question of substantial importance that warranted review.

The case before the high court involves Roselva Chaidez, who was born in Mexico in 1956, came to the United States in the 1970s and now lives in Chicago. She was indicted in 2003 for participating in a scheme to submit fraudulent automobile insurance claims for personal injuries.

She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years of probation and ordered to pay $22,500 in restitution.

WASHINGTON, April 26 (Reuters) – A federal judge on Thursday refused to order President Barack Obama’s administration to release photos and video of the U.S. military operation that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan almost a year ago and the al Qaeda leader’s burial at sea.

The government watchdog group Judicial Watch had requested the Defense Department and CIA release any photos or video footage of the May 1 operation that killed bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

The Defense Department said it found no pictures or videos sought by the group and the CIA said it found 52 such records but refused to release them. It cited exemptions to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act law for classified materials and other reasons.

Judicial Watch sued in federal court and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg sided with the Obama administration.

“A picture may be worth a thousand words,” wrote Boasberg. “Yet, in this case, verbal descriptions of the death and burial of Osama Bin Laden will have to suffice, for this court will not order the release of anything more.”

The judge refused to substitute his judgment for that of the CIA and the Pentagon regarding the national security risks in releasing the classified records.

U.S. officials had long suspected bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan after he escaped from Afghanistan where he had orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Several Supreme Court justices on Wednesday voiced support for Arizona’s effort to crack down on illegal immigration, appearing to reject Obama administration arguments that the federal government has sole responsibility for dealing with people who illegally enter the United States.

The conservative justices who hold a majority on the court suggested by their questions and comments that states would have significant latitude to adopt laws that discourage illegal immigrants from moving to and staying in the United States.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who casts the deciding vote in many cases, referred to the “social and economic disruption” that states endure as a result of a flood of illegal immigrants and suggested that states such as Arizona have authority to act.

Arizona two years ago became the first of a half dozen U.S. states to pass laws aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere, including requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone detained and suspected of being in the country illegally.

The battle over the law goes to the heart of the fierce national debate between Democrats and Republicans over what to do with the estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the country, a number that has held steady in recent years.

A decision for Arizona law would be a setback for President Barack Obama, who has criticized it and has vowed to push for immigration legislation if re-elected on November 6. A ruling against Arizona would be a blow to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has said the government should drop its challenge to the law.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who also could play a key role in deciding the case, spurned the administration’s arguments that the Arizona law conflicted with the federal system and deemed it “an effort to help you enforce federal law.”

WASHINGTON, April 25 (Reuters) – Several U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday voiced support for Arizona’s effort to crack down on illegal immigration, appearing to reject Obama administration arguments that the federal government has sole responsibility for dealing with people who illegally enter the United States.

The conservative justices who hold a majority on the court suggested by their questions and comments that states would have significant latitude to adopt laws that discourage illegal immigrants from moving to and staying in the United States.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who casts the deciding vote in many cases, referred to the “social and economic disruption” that states endure as a result of a flood of illegal immigrants and suggested that states such as Arizona have authority to act.

Arizona two years ago became the first of a half dozen U.S. states to pass laws aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere, including requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone detained and suspected of being in the country illegally.

The battle over the law goes to the heart of the fierce national debate between Democrats and Republicans over what to do with the estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the country, a number that has held steady in recent years.

A decision for Arizona law would be a setback for President Barack Obama, who has criticized it and has vowed to push for immigration legislation if re-elected on Nov. 6. A ruling against Arizona would be a blow to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has said the government should drop its challenge to the law.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who also could play a key role in deciding the case, spurned the administration’s arguments that the Arizona law conflicted with the federal system and deemed it “an effort to help you enforce federal law.”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a constitutional challenge to a New York City rent stabilization law and regulations that control rent increases and evictions for nearly 1 million apartments.

The justices turned down an appeal by a couple, James and Jeanne Harmon, who own and live in a small brownstone building in Manhattan. They claimed three tenants in their building pay government-set rents at 59 percent below market value.

The couple sued in 2008, claiming the rent stabilization law violated their constitutional rights by taking their property without just compensation. They also claimed the law violated the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a six-page ruling by summary order, agreed and rejected the various arguments by the Harmons on the grounds they were without merit.

James Harmon, a lawyer who is the counsel of record in the case, appealed to the Supreme Court. He cited statistics that about half of the city’s total 2 million rental units are subject to rent stabilization, which has generally lowered rents for one-bedroom apartments at 36 percent below market value in Manhattan. The estimated annual costs to property owners has been $2.6 billion, he said.

The rent stabilization regulatory scheme is different from those involving rent control, a more stringent system that applies only to a small, dwindling number of units in New York City.

The city and state defended the rent stabilization law. The state adopted its first rent-control law in 1946 in response to the housing shortage after World War Two. In 1962, the Legislature gave New York City the power to enact its own rent regulations.