From NBC's Pete Williams
In a concession to his inability to close down the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as he planned to do when he came into office, President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to resume military tribunals for some detainees there.

Since Obama became president, no NEW cases were referred to military tribunals, but some existing cases were proceeding. This order lifts the freeze and allows new cases to be brought.

However, the policy makes clear that the administration continues to believe that some cases should be tried in civilian U.S. courts. This new policy today does not mean that ALL detainees at Gitmo will be tried in military commissions. 

In other words, the administration continues to believe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other high-value detainees should be tried here, not at Gitmo, and it will continue pushing Congress to change a recently enacted law which bars bringing any further detainees to the U.S. for trial. However, if Congress is unwilling to budge, then this new policy opens up an avenue for putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial before a military commission, if it comes to that.

From NBC's Pete Williams
After giving the Obama administration a severe tongue lashing, the federal judge in Florida who found the health-care law unconstitutional agreed today to put a hold on his own ruling while the government appeals.

Judge Roger Vinson said he never expected, after ruling Jan. 31 against federal agencies who were defending the law, "that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act" and then ask the judge to explain the practical effect of his own ruling. When a judge finds a law unconstitutional, Vinson said, it's assumed to have the force of an injunction, or order barring enforcement, because of a long-standing presumption that the government will comply with court rulings.

The judge found that the individual mandate in the law, requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance, exceeded the powers given to Congress by the Constitution. But because he said it could not be cleanly separated from the rest of the law, he declared the entire act unconstitutional.

In mid-February, the Justice Department asked the judge to clarify his ruling. His order, the government said, "potentially implicates hundreds of provisions of the Act and, if it were interpreted to apply to programs currently in effect, duties currently in force, taxes currently being collected, and tax credits that may be owed at this time or in the near future, would create substantial uncertainty."

Today, a clearly exasperated Judge Vinson said it was possible the government "may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood" his earlier order. He repeated that he meant for the administration to stop enforcing the health-care law. Even so, given the need for a quick resolution of the issue nationwide, he agreed to put his earlier order on hold, provided that the government seeks fast-track review in either a federal appeals court or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Justice Department said it would seek quick review in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. “We appreciate the court's recognition of the enormous disruption that would have resulted if implementation of the Affordable Care Act was abruptly halted," said a Department spokesman, Tracy Schmaler.

“We strongly disagree with the district court’s underlying ruling in this case and continue to believe - as three federal courts have found - that this law is constitutional,” she added.   

From NBC's Pete Williams:  In a powerful 8-1 ruling, the US Supreme Court today ruled in favor of a highly controversial group from Kansas that has made a practice of protesting at military funerals with signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "God Hates You."

It is a huge victory for a group whose antics have outraged many, including veterans groups.

The court today threw out a jury's award of damages to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq.  He sued the group, claiming that its protests at his son's funeral robbed him of his only chance to bury his son with dignity.   But today, the court said the group's actions were protected by the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment.

The subject of the protests -- gays in the military, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and controversies in the Catholic church -- are plainly matters of public interest.  The group's views were expressed in a public place, and the group abided by all local regulations that restrict protests at funerals.

"Speech is powerful.  It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain," Roberts wrote.  But he said the Constitution protects even hurtful speech on public issues.

For more on the Court's decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church, click here.

From NBC's Pete Williams
The suspicions of a North Carolina chemical dealer have led to the arrest of a college student in Texas, who is accused of plotting to carry out bomb attacks in the U.S.

The FBI arrested 20-year-old Khalid Al-M Aldawsari, a Saudi Arabian college student in Lubbock, late yesterday. Agents say he was in the process of buying chemicals that could be used to make a powerful bomb. They say a search of his home found documents indicating that he has been planning a terror attack in the U.S. "for years" and was inspired by bin Laden's speeches.

Investigators say they found e-mails that Aldawsari sent to himself, one of which was titled "targets." It listed the home addresses of three former U.S. soldiers who served at abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, reservoirs and dams in California and Colorado, and "the Dallas address for former President George W. Bush," court document say.

From NBC's Pete Williams
In a major reversal, the Obama administration has notified Congress that it will no longer defend the federal law that says marriage can exist only between a man and a woman.

Attorney General Eric Holder says he has recommended, and the president has agreed, that the law unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples who are legally married but whose status is not recognized by the federal government.

"Given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination," Holder wrote in a statement, the administration has concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation must be subject to a higher constitutional standard than ordinary laws. And the federal Defense of Marriage Act does not meet that test, he says.

Read the full statement here.

Here's the immediate practical effect of this change:

-The Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect unless a federal court strikes it down or Congress repeals it.

-The government will stop defending the law in two court cases, in New York and Connecticut, where the law has been challenged, and in any other cases challenging the law.

-If the law is to be defended, members of Congress would have to step up and join those lawsuits.

In the statement, Holder argued that the legal landscape has changed since the Defense of Marriage Act was passed 15 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. He mentioned the Supreme Court's ruling striking down criminal laws against homosexuality, the repeal of the military's Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy, and the fact that several lower courts have found the DOMA law unconstitutional.

From NBC's Pete Williams
Do teachers have a right to engage in collective bargaining? There's no federal constitutional right involved, so when it comes to public employees like teachers, it's up to each state.

AP

Protesters bang drums and shout slogans inside the state Capitol Monday in Madison, Wis. Opponents to Gov. Scott Walker's bill to eliminate collective bargaining rights for many state workers are taking part in their seventh day of protesting.

Since 1935, when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, private employees have had the legal right to unionize and bargain collectively. But that law left to individual states the decision of whether to give the same right to their public employees. 

Most states did so, with 34 specifically requiring school districts to engage in collective bargaining with government workers, and 11 others allowing collective bargaining. In those 45 states, including Wisconsin, laws specify which issues can be subject to bargaining, such as pay, benefits, hours, and tenure. The other five states -- Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia -- prohibit collective bargaining by any public employees, including teachers.

Wisconsin was the first state to give collective-bargaining rights to public employees, doing so in 1959. The bill supported by Gov. Scott Walker would take away the right of state-government workers to bargain for anything but pay increases. If it passes, Wisconsin would become the first state in decades to roll back collective-bargaining rights.

At least eight other states are considering something similar. Proposals in Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio would limit the range of issues subject to bargaining. Other bills in Michigan, Nebraska, and Tennessee would eliminate the right to engage in collective bargaining.

From NBC's Pete Williams
What's the point, asks Virginia's attorney general, of letting the federal appeals courts chew over the constitutionality of the health care law when only the U.S. Supreme Court can decide whether it's willing to expand the powers of Congress?

That's the question at the heart of an unusual request filed Wednesday by Virginia, asking the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals courts and take up a review of the health care law as soon as possible. The Supreme Court grants such requests exceedingly rarely, and one justice signaled just last week that she would resist such a move.

The Justice Department has already indicated it will oppose this request.

Ken Cuccinelli (R), Virginia's attorney general, argues that this is the kind of case the justices should take up, because conflicting district-court decisions about the constitutionality of the health-care law have left states and businesses unsure about which requirements, if any, will survive the legal battle.

"States, citizens, and the economy remain mired in uncertainty," he says in his court filing. "Citizens and businesses are widely believed to be reducing spending and delaying hiring in response to the overhand of uncertainty."

Allowing lawsuits filed by Virginia and other states to take their normal course through the appeals courts "will not further focus the controlling issues," Cuccinelli writes. "It is not clear to what extent the courts of appeal are even entitled to engage in independent legal development in the face of binding precedent" from the Supreme Court.

Some aspects of his court filing lean more on political arguments than legal ones.  He says, for example, that the health care law "has roiled America. The party that unanimously opposed" the law in the House "has just seen its largest electoral gains in over seventy years."

At a public forum in Washington last week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that she, for one, would look unfavorably on an attempt to bypass the appeals courts. Asked about the practice in general, but reminded that the health care issue was coming, Ginsburg said of the appeals process, "In most cases, travel is rather slow.  And one reason that that's good is by the time that the case comes to the Supreme Court, other courts have considered the issue.

"We will get a range of views, we will get good minds on federal courts of appeals, district courts, giving their best interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to this particular law. So, we do so much better when we have the views of other federal judges who are certainly no less qualified then we are," Justice Ginsburg said.

From NBC's Pete Williams
Two of the newest members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Republican Mike Lee of Utah, share a distinction appropriate to that committee. Both were U.S. Supreme Court clerks.

Blumenthal clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun, and Lee was a clerk for Justice Samuel Alito. 

But how many other U.S. senators have clerked for Supreme Court justices throughout American history? 

A) 0
B) 2
C) 3
D) 5

The correct answer is below. But before getting to it, it's worth noting how many former Supreme Court clerks have gone on to become justices on the high court. Three members of the current court have that distinction -- John Roberts clerked for William Rehnquist; Elena Kagan clerked for Thurgood Marshall; and Stephen Breyer clerked for Arthur Goldberg. Among former justices, Rehnquist clerked for Robert Jackson; John Paul Stevens clerked for Wiley Rutledge; and Byron White clerked for Fred Vinson.

Now to the answer: It's zero. Remarkably, Lee and Blumenthal become the first U.S. senators ever to serve as Supreme Court clerks, according to a check with the court and the Senate historian. It's a fact first pointed out by Legal Times, noted in introducing an interview with Sen. Lee in its Feb. 7 issue.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in a January 2011 photo in Richmond, Va.

From NBC's Pete Williams
The Virginia official most responsible for his state's challenge to the health-care law says he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the legal dispute over the law quickly, bypassing the federal appeals courts.

Federal law does allow for appealing a trial judge's ruling directly, without waiting for an intermediate appeals court to review the case. It is, however,  a legal gambit disfavored by the Supreme Court and rarely granted. 

Even so, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) says this is the sort of exception the rules were intended to accommodate.

"Given the uncertainty caused by the divergent rulings of the various courts on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we feel that it is necessary to seek resolution of this issue as quickly as possible," he said. 

"Regardless of whether you believe the law is constitutional or not, we should all agree that a prompt resolution of this issue is in everyone's best interest," Cuccinelli said.

The Justice Department opposes the move, partly on the grounds that if any case should be used to fast-track a decision, this one isn't it, given that the ruling the state seeks to appeal is partly based on fact unique to Virginia -- a state law declaring that residents cannot be required to buy insurance.

"This case is one of two that are already scheduled for argument in the 4th Circuit this May, so going through the usual process would make little difference in timing as to when the Supreme Court could hear it, while allowing the appellate court to thoroughly evaluate the issues," said a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler.

"The individual responsibility provision does not go into effect until 2014, so there is more than sufficient time for this case to proceed first in the court of appeals," she said.

Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the process of leap-frogging over the appeals court as "an extremely rare occurrence." It has been granted in cases of national emergency, such as the Truman administration crisis over nationalizing steel mills and the showdown over Watergate tapes during the Nixon administration.

But the Supreme Court has declined to hear other cases that were deemed to be of national importance, denying immediate review, for example, in the 1998 case that sought to test whether President Clinton could be sued while in office.

Cuccinelli undeniably has a point, because some states are confused about the effect of the two federal court rulings declaring the law unconstitutional. But the split among the lower courts is precisely the sort of condition that the Supreme Court prefers to let the appeals courts sort out before the justices wade in.

From NBC's Pete Williams
The Justice Department responded promptly to today's ruling on the health-care law, pledging to appeal.

"We strongly disagree with the court's ruling today and continue to believe -- as other federal courts have found -- that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," said Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.

"There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.

"We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any -- including seeking a stay -- are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides; that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires; and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need," she said.

From NBC's Pete Williams
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the government's new threat warning system will consist of two levels -- elevated and imminent, replacing the five-tiered, color coded system in place since 2002.
 
"When a threat develops that could impact you, the public, we will tell you. We will provide whatever information we can so you know how to protect yourselves, your families, and your communities," Napolitano said in remarks prepared for a speech Thursday on the status of America's homeland security.
 
The new alerts, she said, "will provide a concise summary of the potential threat, information about actions being taken to ensure public safety, and recommended steps that individuals and communities can take."
 
In some cases, Napolitano said, the alerts may be communicated directly to law enforcement or to segments of the private sector, such as shopping malls or hotels. They will be specific to the threat and may recommend that people take certain actions, such as looking for suspicious behavior. And the alerts will include an end date.
 
The new system will go into effect in three months, by the end of April. Under the current advisory system, the nation's airports are at orange or high, while the rest of the country is at yellow or elevated. During the first four years of the colored system, the threat level was changed 16 times, both up and down, but it has not been changed in four-and-a-half years, despite several serious security threats. That fact alone reflects what many have seen as the old system's declining utility in communicating useful information.  

AP

In this March 12, 2002 file photo, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge unveils a color-coded terrorism warning system in Washington created after the September 11th attacks.

From NBC's Pete Williams
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is expected to announce tomorrow that the color-coded threat advisory system, launched after the 9/11 attacks but now more or less discarded, will be formally scrapped this spring.

DHS has for the past several months moved away from the threat system. The threat level was not changed, for example, after the underwear bombing attempt on Christmas Day 2009, after the car bomb attempt last year in Times Square, or when package bombs were detected on cargo flights last fall.

Instead, DHS has more directly communicated intelligence directly to those considered most likely to need it and has made information public without resorting to changing the threat level.

The system was frequently used after its inception, with the threat level changed 16 times after it was introducted in 2002.

But no changes have been made to the threat level in any sector since August 2006.