The lawyers for John Joseph Delling have asked the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution guarentees a right to the insanity defense. Delling, who’s 2007 crime spree lasted weeks and resulted in two dead and one seriously wounded, committed his crimes in Iowa, one of only four states in which insanity cannot be used as a defense against criminal charges. Kansas, Montana, and Utah are the other three states.

Delling is currently serving a life term at a maximum security prison even though his trial judge found that he did not have the “ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.” Delling’s lawyers argue that the insanity defense was the only one available to him.

“For centuries, the moral integrity of the criminal law has depended, in part, on the insanity defense,” Stanford law professor Jeffrey L. Fisher wrote in a petition on Delling’s behalf.

Punishment is traditionally justified on the basis of an individual consciously choosing evil over good, Fisher wrote. “Laws such as Idaho’s abandon that basic tenet,” he said.

Fisher contends that Idaho’s law violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process of law, as well as the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

According to one study, the insanity defense is rarely invoked and is successful only about 25 percent of the time. The Constitutional Accountability Center and the American Psychiatric Association support Delling’s case, along with a group of 52 law professors who told the Supreme Court that the affirmative defense of insanity is a matter of fundamental fairness.

The state of Idaho resisted Delling’s arguments when his case came before the state supreme court, but has not responded to his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court will decide whether or not to review Delling’s case later this year.

–Alex Brown

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-3 that high school graduations held in a church violate the constitution. The case concerned graduations held in Elmbrook Church, a non-denominational evangelical church in Brookfield, Wisconsin.

A panel of the 7th Circuit ruled last year that holding graduations in the church was not unconstitutional but the full court disagreed, ruling that the symbols present in the church, including a large cross, amounted to a government endorsement of a particular religion.

“The same risk that children … will perceive the state as endorsing a set of religious beliefs is present both when exposure to a pervasively religious environment occurs in the classroom and when government summons students to an offsite location for important ceremonial events,” Judge Joel Flaum wrote for the majority.

The ruling marks a far-reaching victory for the organization Americans for the Separation of Church and State, which filed a lawsuit three years ago alleging the ceremonies were unconstitutional.

“The decision makes clear to public schools that it’s not appropriate to hold graduation ceremonies in venues festooned with religious symbols,” the group’s executive director, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, said in a statement.

While a parent was the first one to object to the Elmbrook School District’s decision to move graduations to the church, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Anti-Defamation League, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State all also objected. Americans for Separation of Church and State filed a federal suit against the district in 2009.

The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause forbids the government from establishing an official national religion and prohibits favoring one religion over another or over non-religion. The school district is considering appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

–Alex Brown

A federal judge ruled yesterday that the U.S. government can continue to act as if diplomatic cables already released by WikiLeaks are still secret. The decision came in a Freedom of Information Act case in which the ACLU requested 23 diplomatic cables that had been posted online and widely discussed after they were released by WikiLeaks.

Even though the cables had been released by WikiLeaks, the government was only willing to release redacted versions of 13 cables and withheld the other 12.

The cables [the ACLU] requested reveal the diplomatic harms of widely criticized U.S. government policies, including torture, detention and rendition of detainees, detention at Guantanamo, and the use of drones to carry out targeted killings. The State Department claims that the withheld cables are classified, and thus so secret that they cannot be released—despite the fact that they are already accessible to anyone in the world with an internet connection and a passing interest in current events.

In order to avoid releasing its own copies of the cables, the government was required to prove to the court that doing so would cause harm to national security. It offered explanations of why releasing secret State Department cables might harm relations with foreign governments or disclose sensitive information, but failed to explain what harm would come from releasing cables that are already available to the public in full, and that the government has admitted have been leaked. [...]

It’s hard to reconcile the court’s decision with the goals of FOIA, which is described by the government as “the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government.” The government has reacted aggressively to the WikiLeaks disclosures. Not only is it refusing to comply with FOIA requests or declassify documents that have already been release, Private First Class Bradley Manning, accused of supplying the documents released by WikiLeaks, has been treated harshly and faces a possible life sentence.

–Alex Brown

The city of Chicago is preparing to pay out more than $5 million to former inmate Michael Tillman, one of 110 alleged African American victims of police torture under long-time police commander Jon Burge. Tillman spent more than two decades in prison for the 1986 rape and murder of a South Side woman, which he confessed to after detectives repeatedly beat him with a phone book, suffocated him with a typewriter cover, poured soda up his nose, threatened him with a gun, and burned him with a cigarette lighter.

The Finance Committee also called for a $1.8 million payment to David Fauntleroy, who was tortured into confessing to a 1983 murder that landed him a prison sentence of 25 years.

Though Chicago taxpayers have already paid nearly $44.9 million in settlements for these abuses, one of the central figures in the case, former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, will dodge orders to testify about his knowledge of the scandal. Tillman’s lawsuit claims Daley, who was state’s attorney at the time, knew Burge was torturing suspects and aided in a cover-up when he became mayor. Daley’s office flatly denies any knowledge of the torture.

Burge himself was already convicted in 2010 for lying about the practices and is serving 4 and a half years in prison.

Tillman recanted his forced confession after just a few days, but stayed locked up until attorneys brought evidence proving a systemic pattern of torture by Burge and his team of so-called “Asskickers,” along with a compelling case for Tillman’s innocence. Ultimately the Cook County Special Prosecutor was convinced to dismiss Tillman’s case in January 2010, and the Chief Judge issued him a judicial certificate of innocence.

On the 25th anniversary of Tillman’s arrest, a district court judge upheld Tillman’s claims against Daley, ruling that Daley could be held as a conspirator in the scheme to torture and cover-up. Though Daley won’t be deposed now that Tillman has agreed to settle the lawsuit, Tillman is hardly the end of the scandal; five other men still have pending torture lawsuits against the city and could still question Daley about his role in the abuse and cover-up.

Tillman and his attorneys have called on Mayor Rahm Emanuel to publicly apologize on behalf of the city and its police department to all Burge torture victims and to Chicago’s African American community on Wednesday, when settlement is formally presented to him and the entire Chicago City Council for approval.

SLINGER, Wisconsin — With polls showing a surprisingly tight presidential race in Wisconsin, the state’s new voter ID law could make the difference for Mitt Romney, according to the State Senate Minority Assistant Leader Glenn Grothman (R).

Grothman helped pass voter ID in Wisconsin last year, which disenfranchises citizens who don’t bring a certain form of photo identification with them to the polls.

In an interview with ThinkProgress on Sunday, the number-two Republican senator argued that voter ID could be a boon for Republicans’ electoral prospects if the controversial law, which was recently blocked in state court, is reinstated in time for the November election. “Insofar as there are inappropriate things, people who vote inappropriately are more likely to vote Democrat,” argued Grothman.

KEYES: If it were upheld and in place in time for the November election, do you think — polls have shown a pretty razor-thin margin — do you think it might ultimately help Romney’s campaign here in the state?

GROTHMAN: Yes. Right. I think we believe that insofar as there are inappropriate things, people who vote inappropriately are more likely to vote Democrat.

KEYES: So if these protections are in place of voter ID, that might ultimately help him in a close race?

GROTHMAN: Right. I think if people cheat, we believe the people who cheat are more likely to vote against us.

Listen to it:

Wisconsin is perennially a swing state in presidential elections. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) carried Wisconsin by just 0.4 percent in 2004; polls this year suggest it could be another nailbiter. PPP gives President Obama a 6-point edge, 50-44, but Rasmussen put Romney ahead by 3 points, 47-44.

Approximately 300,000 Wisconsinites lack a government-issued photo ID, more than 27 times the margin that Kerry won by in 2004. If the polls are still close in November and voter ID is reinstated, Grothman may very well be correct that the new law will give Romney an edge on Election Day.

Wisconsin isn’t the only state where Republican legislators think voter ID could help their presidential nominee prevail. Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) turned heads last month when he declared that voter ID “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” Turzai helped lead the push for voter ID in the Keystone State, which passed earlier this year.