Mississippi is set to execute a man Tuesday night without testing available DNA evidence from a hair sample in his case. ThinkProgress reported last week that a 5-4 court upheld the decision not to test the evidence, in spite of a prosecutor’s inconclusive logic linking the hair sample to Willie Jerome Manning simply because they were both deemed African American. Now, as the Atlantic’s Andrew Cohen reports, the Department of Justice has intervened to point out that even prosecutors’ conclusion that the hair sample was African American was unscientific and invalid. A letter Manning’s lawyers filed in court reads:

We have determined that the microscopic hair comparison analysis testimony or laboratory report presented in this case included additional statements that exceeded the limits of science and was, therefore, invalid. In response to inquiries regarding whether the errors identified in the notification letter had any bearing on the examiner’s opinion regarding the racial classification of the hair, the FBI states the following: The scientific analysis of hair evidence permits an examiner to offer an opinion that a questioned hair possesses certain traits that are associated with a particular racial group. However, since a statistical probability cannot be determined for classification of hair into a particular racial group, it would be error for an examiner to testify that he can determine that the questioned hairs were from an individual of a particular racial group. Thus, an examiner cannot testify with any statement of probability whether the hair is from a particular racial group, but can testify that a hair exhibits traits associated with a particular racial group.

By not testing available DNA evidence using new scientific techniques that were not available at the time of his 1994 trial, Mississippi is choosing to ignore readily available scientific evidence in favor of flawed conclusions based on shaky racially charged testimony, as well as jailhouse informant testimony, which studies have found is particularly susceptible to manipulation. But as Cohen points out, there’s something else the DNA would do. If it is not Bryant’s, it is likely somebody else’s and that person will be identified only by testing the hair sample. Failure to do so reflects the deep institutional government interest in preserving the integrity of completed convictions, even at the expense of finding a different dangerous perpetrator or sparing an innocent person’s life. Manning is still awaiting word on whether Gov. Phil Bryant will grant clemency, and a court could still respond to the most recent motions by Manning’s lawyers.

Even as other states move toward making a it little bit easier for undocumented immigrants to drive, Louisiana law still makes it a felony to drive without documentation of lawful U.S. presence. But a Louisiana appellate court struck down the driving while undocumented law last week as unconstitutional, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling on federal preemption of state immigration law.

The court explains that the record does not provide “any factual basis for the police approaching Defendant, nor any basis which would establish probable cause for arresting Defendant.” In fact, the statute does not seem to even require the fundamental American standard of proof for arrests, the court explains in a unanimous ruling:

Louisiana Revised Statute 14:100.13 does not expressly require any probable cause for arrest, and when questioned in oral argument, the State‘s attorney could not, or would not, offer any response to this court‘s repeated encouragement that he offer one example of what might constitute probable cause for an arrest under La.R.S. 14:100.13. Moreover, La.R.S. 14:100.13 offers no definition of the terms “alien student” or “nonresident alien.” These terms have no real meaning under the federal immigration scheme and are not recognized in federal immigration provisions. Neither does the statute define what is meant by “lawfully present in the United States.” Indeed it is for the federal government to define “lawful presence” in the United States and it has done so through a complex and comprehensive scheme regulating immigration and naturalization. These unanswered questions in Louisiana‘s statute underscore the reason why the various states in the United States cannot be left to their own designs to “compliment” federal law or make additional or auxiliary requirements to federal immigration law. The United States Supreme Court in Arizona expressly recognized the unwelcome prospect of state laws such as La.R.S. 14:100.13 being used to unnecessarily harass college students from foreign countries attending our great universities.

The ruling is in conflict with another state appeals court, which upheld the law. But today’s ruling notes that decision was before the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, and would not stand in its wake. The court split makes it likely that the state Supreme Court will review the case.

Several states refuse to issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, which also causes safety and other problems, while others are instituting reform to explicitly allow undocumented individuals (although many of these laws issue different, distinct licenses to undocumented individuals). While the Louisiana statute was struck down as a violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, mirroring the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 immigration decision in SB 1070, the law also poses tremendous racial discrimination problems, and its implementation could likely be challenged as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, since police officers are pulling over individuals without any other legal basis for the stop other than visual cues that might suggest they are undocumented.

On Saturday, as Texas hosted the National Rifle Association’s annual convention, the Texas House passed 12 gun bills to make it even easier to obtain and possess firearms in the state. The onslaught of legislation contains provisions to allow college students to carry handguns in class and to block any theoretical federal bans on assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition. The 12 bills, a veritable goody bag for gun rights advocates, passed easily in the Republican-dominated House.

Texas lawmakers introduced about twice as many gun bills this session as last year, generally in response to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. The state’s already forgiving gun laws will become even more permissive if even a handful of these bills become law. See a sample below:

No federal gun laws apply to the state. In a blatantly unconstitutional move, the House approved Rep. Steve Toth’s (R) proposal to exempt the state from any future federal laws to ban or restrict assault weapons or magazines. Federal law enforcement officers would be punished with up to 5 years in prison and a $50,000 fine if they tried to enforce these bans.

Guns in classrooms. Even after recent shootings at Lone Star College and near Texas A&M University, one of the newly passed bills now opens college classrooms to concealed weapons. Schools will be allowed to opt out if they choose. Separately, the Texas Senate approved a measure allowing college students to keep their guns in their cars on campus.

Armed marshals in schools. Public elementary, middle and high schools would select employees with concealed weapons permits to receive firearms training. These marshals would be granted access to guns in emergency situations.

Relaxed requirements to obtain concealed carry permits. The House reduced the number of training hours to get a concealed weapon permit by half, and allow individuals to renew permits online. Another bill passed would lower the handgun license fee for police, veterans, national and state Guard, and some Criminal Justice Department employees. The lost fees will cost the state up to $2 million.

In several West Coast cities, federal officials are initiating a new round of crackdowns against dispensaries that are seemingly complying with state medical marijuana law. In Seattle, 11 dispensaries received shutdown warnings. In San Francisco, almost half of the city’s small number of state-licensed dispensaries received similar warnings. And in neighboring cities like San Jose, several others were warned.

The cease-and-desist letters from the Drug Enforcement Administration warn harsh federal punishment, including as much as 40 years in jail even for landlords that rent to marijuana dispensaries. They also warn that they if properties do not cease marijuana activity within 30 days, the agency will pursue what’s known as civil forfeiture, in which the federal government threatens to seize the facility and other assets if the marijuana business continues. For those who are renting space, this means the landlord is effectively asked to evict its marijuana tenant — a process that has proved difficult, as state and federal courts handling eviction proceedings resist this federal intervention.

This is not the first round of crackdowns in any of these cities, which have forced shutdowns of dispensaries considered “models” in their community, or festered in prolonged legal battles. But these crackdowns are particularly symbolic, because they come en masse, in the wake of ballot initiatives in November to legalize and regulate recreational marijuana in two states, and because they are being executed post-sequester, even as prominent law enforcement officials like Attorney General Eric Holder have warned that the blunt cuts threaten public safety. Polls since the November ballot initiatives found that a majority of Americans now support marijuana legalization, and that an even greater percentage think the states should decide whether marijuana is legal.

DEA spokeswoman Jodie Underwood said the letters went out to those who were within 1,000 feet of a school or other prohibited area. She said because the feds can’t go after all dispensaries, they target those that are closer to sensitive areas as a means of enforcing federal drug law. “DEA enforces federal drug laws, and these letters have nothing to do with any pending legislation or state law,“ Underwood told the Seattle Times. “As we continue to identify locations, additional letters will be sent out.”

And while the crackdowns have focused on those alleged to be less than 1,000 feet from prohibited areas, dispensary owners say it’s almost impossible to keep within that distance in dense city settings. Even those who have been meticulous about measuring the distance and cited their facilities right outside of the 1,000-feet limit say they were targeted this week.

Particularly noteworthy is that in spite of San Francisco’s size and culture, the city now hosts only about 15 permitted medical marijuana dispensaries that have been deemed in compliance with state and local law (some others closed during earlier rounds of crackdowns). Compare that to Seattle and San Jose, which both have more than 100. Los Angeles has several hundred. Out of San Francisco’s 15 dispensaries, seven received letters this week — a move that could have the effect of eviscerating the local industry of regulated dispensaries. While an official White House policy on Washington and Colorado’s recreational marijuana laws is still pending, the DEA’s current approach suggests that even state law-abiding recreational dispensaries may be subject to the same type of crackdown, in the absence of federal legislation to exempt those states.

HOUSTON, TX — Two prominent gun rights groups are distributing literature taking apart the National Rifle Association (NRA)’s misinformation on the Manchin-Toomey background check bill — at the NRA’s own conference.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) bills itself as the second largest gun advocacy organization in the country. Its leader, Alan Gottlieb, also heads up the Second Amendment Foundation, a pro-gun legal action group that brought the case (McDonald v. Chicago) that required all states to treat handgun ownership as a constitutional right. The two organizations appear, judging from joint flyers distributed at the NRA conference, to coordinate.

CCRKBA kicked up a controversy in April, when it broke with the NRA to support the Manchin-Toomey expanded background checks bills. (The group later withdrew its support for Manchin-Toomey right before the vote because a pro-gun amendment it supported was not being considered.) But despite the bill’s (perhaps temporary) defeat in the Senate, CCRKBA doesn’t appear to be backing down — The Gun Mag, a Second Amendment Foundation publication, published an “NRA Meeting Special Issue” whose lead article takes apart the NRA’s line on Manchin-Toomey.

The article, written by former NRA Board member Dave Workman, takes an oblique shot at the NRA, which built its argument against Manchin-Toomey on the specter of gun registration and confiscation:

Gun rights activists across the nation believe the Schumer measure would establish a de facto gun registry due to a record keeping requirement. There is no record keeping provision in the Manchin-Toomey bill, and using background check information to create a registry would be punishable by up to 15 years in prison.[...]

The Manchin-Toomey alternative would provide for background checks on all commercial gun sales, including those done at gun shows and that originate on the Internet. An important exemption applies to transfers of firearms between family members, and private sales between friends and neighbors would also be exempt.

Though the Manchin-Toomey bill did not receive enough support to break a filibuster against it, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used a procedural maneuver to ensure the bill could be reconsidered at a future date.

Continuing a dramatic winning streak that has spanned the Roberts Court era, the Chamber of Commerce has won six of its seven Supreme Court cases decided thus far this term. In all, it filed amicus briefs in 18 cases this term, making the top corporate lobby a preeminent Supreme Court influencer. The Chamber also files numerous petitions at at the earlier stage when the Supreme Court is deciding which decisions to hear, shaping its docket such that the Chamber is poised to have participated in 24 percent of the Court’s decided cases this term, according to a new report from the Constitutional Accountability Center:

Over the past thirty years, the Chamber’s participation rate has increased six-fold, from 4% in the early 1980s to 24% today.

This dramatic increase in participation is a reflection, in part, of the Chamber’s success in shaping the Court’s docket. As SCOTUSblog reported in early April, the Chamber remains “the country’s preeminent petition-pusher,” as it filed the greatest number of amicus briefs at the cert. stage of any private organization during SCOTUSblog’s three-year study period (running from May 2009 to August 2012). Importantly, the Chamber also has the highest success rate of any of the ten most active organizations during this period – with the Court granting 32% of the Chamber’s cases overall. Therefore, the Chamber is not just participating in cases that the Court decides to hear, but it’s also aggressively and successfully working to shape the Court’s docket.

The Chamber’s win rate has also increased dramatically in the Roberts Court, illustrated in the chart below:

Among the Chamber’s wins thus far this term were two 5-4 decisions that eroded the class mechanisms for holding corporations accountable, and the major ruling on the Alien Tort Statute that slashed accountability in U.S. courts for human rights abuses abroad.