In a surprising and remarkable decision, a federal judge in NYC has granted an injunction on Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act. Attorney Carl Mayer returns for a victory lap. And Mayer provides great commentary on the 68-page ruling, which conferred "standing" on the plaintiffs and affirmed their "undisputed testimony" of predictable harm if the section were enforced. The suit was brought by Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky and 4 younger activists and journalists, including a member of the legislature of Iceland. Mayer praises Judge Katherine B. Forrest for a "clever decision" and describes the lame arguments and tactics of the government, which put on no witnesses. The judge rejected government arguments that this part of NDAA is just an affirmation of the powers granted in the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force. She clearly ruled that Section 1021 was vague, lacked key definitions, and infringed on the rights of the plaintiffs. By invoking the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United to support her decision, Judge Forrest made the first positive use of that dismal precedent. You can read the decision here. Support the legal effort here, and follow Carl Mayer's legal efforts, including the Montana challenge to Citizens United here.