08-02-2012, 06:09 PM
Opinion wrote:
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
Judge's actual words wrote:
The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
…
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.
The ruling was in regard to paying the lawyer's fees of the organization bringing suit, not in regard to the original conduct. The judge is agreeing that original case was not entirely frivolous. I am not expert in the original case, however, this ruling does not make anyone more knowledgeable of it. The opinion writer's topic sentence is typical of opinion, i.e. we know everyone has one.