Thanks for the link to the article. The article leads me to believe the issue isn't as much about the Act itself as it is the government's interpretation of the Act. Conventional wisdom tells me that the Supreme Court would have the final say, but it seems to be a sticky wicket as to how it would get to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately if they keep it a secret then we can't find out how it's been interpreted so far and more importantly, acted upon. In an attempt to relate this back to E5's original question that prompted all of this: it doesn't matter if the Act is legal if the government is going to "hide the ball" and prevent the normal safety checks (SCOTUS) from being implemented. So is the Act illegal, or the government's action in regard to the Act illegal?