Court Tells US Gov't That 'State Secrets' Isn't A Magic Wand They Can Wave To Make Embarrassing Cases Go Away
from the good-news dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about the case of Gulet Mohamed, a US citizen who was put on the no fly list and ran into some issues in the Middle East because of that (and by "issues" we mean he was beaten by Kuwaiti officials for wanting to fly home to Virginia). The DOJ was making some nutty arguments, including claiming that the whole case should be thrown out because "state secrets." This is the usual claim in these kinds of cases. Back in August we noted that the judge, Anthony Trenga, was skeptical of this argument, asking for the DOJ to provide a lot more info to back up its claims (in that post we also noted that the DOJ wanted to pretend that the leaked guidelines for how the no fly list works hadn't been leaked).Now the judge has ruled officially and rejected the DOJ's argument, saying that they can't just claim "state secrets" and walk away. In the ruling, Judge Trenga makes it clear that while there may be some sensitive information in some documents, the case can move forward without that information being revealed:
Certain of the submitted documents appear to contain confidential, security sensitive information that may fall appropriately within a law enforcement privilege. However, the information presented to date by the defendants in support of the state secrets privilege as to these documents is insufficient to allow the Court to conclude that "there is a reasonable danger" that disclosure of these documents to at least the plaintiffs counsel, under the protections of an adequate protective order, would disclose information that would "expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged."More importantly, Judge Trenga notes that the DOJ has to get over this idea that the "state secrets" privilege is some kind of "sovereign immunity" claim that the DOJ can just wave around and have entire cases dismissed:
... the state secrets privilege is a judicially created rule of evidence, not a doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-justiciability, whose applicability and consequences, where applicable, are best considered within a specific context during the actual adjudication of any claims to which it may apply.That's a bit of a complex sentence, but it's basically saying that state secrets may apply to specific bits of evidence, but shouldn't be used to just toss out an entire case. Kudos for Judge Trenga for not just rolling over when the DOJ said "state secrets." It would be nice if more judges did the same.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dhs, doj, evidence, gulet mohamed, no fly list, state secrets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Inspired!
I'll say "State Secrets"
And he'll just lay down and roll over. It will be awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm Inspired!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I'm not dead yet!"
"I'm feeling much better."
"I think I'll go for a walk."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Enjoy
Barack
Obama's
Legacy,
America!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If we all just stop cheering for Team Red and Team Blue and stick to the facts we'll be able to move towards change. Until then, enjoy tyranny. The tyrants will be running the show whichever team is in the White House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not saying he's the best president EVAR! or even that great of one, but let's not go tossing the green wood onto the fire. We get enough smoke from the government without making our own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fourth Circuit [was Re: ]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
The Fourth Circuit has a reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fourth Circuit [was Re: ]
Here's one of the top Google results for:"fourth circuit" reputation.
“Is the 4th Circuit veering back to the center?”, by Sharon McCloskey, North Carolina Policy Watch, February 2013
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it would be nice if more judges did their damn job and ruled on cases that had been justly conducted, instead of throwing out as much as it can for the most ridiculous reasons, so as to fall in line with what certain industries or the government wants! and how the hell the majority manage to change the constitution etc when they like, how they like, is beyond me!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...or do they just anonymously mention, 'heh, remember that judge so-and-so who was found with kiddie porn on their 'puter ? No? Me neither, but I bet they were innocent, too. Have a nice day!'
end of problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would they rule?
What could they rule? Can they simply toos the case, or would they say "government does not have to produce evidence? DO they have to give a reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinions
No.
Otoh, if the Fourth Circuit just tossed the case, in a one-line per curiam order... well, I wouldn't be surprised to see the next court order read “petition for certorari granted”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how long it will take...
Those are their two favorite words and they use them often about people with different opinions than their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coming soon: A bill that defines state secrets as sovereign immunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can understand why the doctrine of sovereign immunity would apply if, for example, someone in Canada wanted to sue the US government.
But the US government is the elected and appointed representatives of the collective citizenry of the United States. How can it have sovereignty over its own employers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]