AP:

A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court’s approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.

Excellent.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said the government orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review and that the recently rewritten Patriot Act “offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.”

Excellent.

The law was written “reflects an attempt by Congress and the executive to infringe upon the judiciary’s designated role under the Constitution,” Marrero wrote.

Looks like “ambition counteracting ambition” still has some effectiveness.

Harry, Nancy? I assume you’ll be immediately endorsing the judge’s decision?

NOTE Thank you, President Clinton, and thank you, Chuck Schumer (!) for the nomination. And, naturally, thanks to the Senate for confirming him.

UPDATE WaPo:

Marrero wrote in his 106-page ruling that Patriot Act provisions related to NSLs are “the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values.”

I guess I don’t care whether Consitutional issues are for wonks or not. You might as well say that poison gas in a coal mine is only for canaries, eh?

MORE Marrero is a true defender of our liberties. He’s done this before:

The ruling marks the second time that Marrero has struck down the Patriot Act’s NSL provisions. In 2004, the judge found the law unconstitutional because it silenced NSL recipients and gave them no recourse through the courts.

As the government was appealing that ruling, Congress passed new legislation in 2005 that was aimed at solving the problems identified by Marrero. But the judge, responding to an amended complaint by the ACLU, ruled today that “several aspects of the revised nondisclosure provision of the NSL statute violate the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.”