Matthew Yglesias on Pamela Johnson, who owns a storefront in D.C.'s Northeast H Street corridor and is upset about the streetcar being built:

The New York Times is the latest paper to take a look at Washington, D.C.'s internal divisions, but it stays in the shallow end of the pool:

Some of these poorer residents saw revitalization as code for efforts to drive them out, and the building of dog parks and bike and streetcar lanes as efforts by affluent whites to re-arrange spending priorities to suit themselves. That perception surfaced during the Democratic primary last year and was used — many say unfairly — as a criticism of Adrian M. Fenty, who was then the mayor.

Over at Greg's today I discuss how Herman Cain, in the grand tradition of Republican politicians jumping into local zoning disputes when Muslims are involved, has declared his opposition to a mosque in Murfreesboro Tennessee, saying the building was “an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a lawsuit last July over the TSA's use of body scanners, arguing that they violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Not surprisingly, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. In a decision released earlier today, they dismissed EPIC's constitutional arguments against the body scanners, while agreeing with a smaller complaint that TSA failed to to "initiate notice-and-comment rulemaking before announcing it would use AIT scanners for primary screening."

The Department of Justice has appealed a federal court's decision to lift a stay allowing the military to continue implementing its Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. The court lifted the stay in part based on the government's own arguments for refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

File this under hilarious press release of the day:

NEW YORK – In response to an American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act request, the Defense Department disclosed to the ACLU a document that contains criteria for holding detainees at the Bagram detention center in Afghanistan. Now, the government contends the document is properly classified and is asking a federal court to order its return.

The ACLU says the document should never have been classified and should be made public under the Freedom of Information Act. It contains the criteria for labeling detainees an "enduring security threat," which results in prolonged and possibly indefinite detention.