zlacker

>>_delir+(OP)
> The search warrant, signed by Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, appears to violate federal law that provides protections against searching and seizing materials from journalists.

Wow, unreal that she could approve such a warrant. Even in the absence of a federal statute it seems like a crazy step to take.

>>wyldfi+X3
Does the federal law apply to local government?

>>teduna+N5
The applicability of this particular statute (42 USC § 2000aa) - as with most of the Federal government's power - hinges on this clause: "...in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce..."

It seems plausible that the paper might report on things that relate to or impact neighboring states.

But like I said - even if the statute weren't there - what's wrong with calling them up and asking them to surrender whatever they're searching for under subpoena instead? Especially for the purported crime of "identity theft"?!

>>wyldfi+n6
Besides precedent it's still more than that. At the least 14th amendment > No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

And last clause says Congress has three power to enforce this

>>schuyl+37
Right, but Congress passed a law which limited its own scope to interstate commerce. So while the 14th Amendment makes it eligible in general its specific applicability depends on it itself.

And sadly this perhaps qualifies as "due process" in Marion County.

>>wyldfi+k7
> Congress passed a law which limited its own scope to interstate commerce.

What law is that? I'm not familiar with such a law but can't imagine it would even be constitutional. Eg the law Jack Smith indicted trump with recently is about protecting federal/conditional rights.

Yes, the commerce clause is quite expansive and is interpreted expansively, but at the least this would be a first amendment issue and Congress can enforce that and does

>>schuyl+6g
> What law is that?

That citation and the quoted bit limiting the law to interstate commerce is already in the first comment you replied to. I think you have misconstrued something.