SECRECY NEWS
From the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2014, Issue No. 61
September 16, 2014 Secrecy News Blog: http://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/ ** COURT REQUIRES IN CAMERA REVIEW OF STATE SECRETS DOCS
COURT REQUIRES IN CAMERA REVIEW OF STATE SECRETS DOCS
Over the objections of government attorneys, a federal judge said yesterday that he would require in camera review of documents that the government says are protected by the state secrets privilege. The issue arose in the case of Gulet Mohamed v. Eric Holder, challenging the constitutionality of the "no fly" list.
The government had argued that it is "inappropriate" for a court to review such records to verify that they are validly privileged, and that instead the court should grant dismissal of case on the basis of official declarations. (Gov't Resists Court Review of State Secrets, Secrecy News, August 27). The government moved for reconsideration of an August 6 order to produce the records for in camera review.
Yesterday, Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia granted the government's motion for reconsideration, but he said that having reconsidered the matter, he determined that he had been right the first time around.
"Upon reconsideration of its Order, however, the Court finds that none of [the] objections justifies vacating the Order, as the defendants request. The Court therefore affirms its Order."
"This case involves complex and unsettled issues pertaining to the respective roles of the legislative, executive and judicial branches," Judge Trenga wrote. "One central issue is the extent to which the War on Terrorism may expand the ability of the executive branch to act in ways that cannot otherwise be justified."
The Court "understands its limited institutional competence to assess claims of national security and its obligation not to extend its review of claims of state secrets beyond what is necessary for the Court to perform its institutional role," Judge Trenga wrote. Nevertheless, under current circumstances "the Court concludes that it is necessary for the Court to review at this stage certain of the underlying documents as to which the state secrets privilege is asserted."
"This case involves the extraordinary exercise of executive branch authority to operate a program [the "no fly" procedure] that results in the deprivation of basic liberties according to secret executive branch decision making, without pre-deprivation judicial review.... [Therefore,] the Court has a particularly strong and heightened institutional responsibility in these circumstances to review and assess the propriety of such executive branch activity since to dismiss this case as the defendants request would, in essence, judicially sanction conduct that has far-reaching implications."
Merely relying on government assertions of privilege without independent review of their basis and validity is inadequate since "In many instances, the privilege claims are conclusory, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to assess the merits of those claims...."
He also noted the Attorney General's assertion that the state secrets privilege extends to at least one unclassified document, the Watchlisting Guidance, and yet "a document that purports to be that Watchlisting Guidance has been publicly disseminated."
"The Court therefore cannot accept, without further inquiry and review, that all of the documents as to which the state secrets privilege has been invoked in fact contain state secrets, or that any state secrets that might be contained in the listed documents would preclude the litigation of the plaintiff's claims...," Judge Trenga wrote.
He ordered the government to produce the relevant documents for in camera review on or before October 15, 2014.
In a footnote, Judge Trenga's Order contains a rare judicial acknowledgment that "The government's assertion of the state secrets privilege in certain cases has been less than reassuring. See Reynolds v. United States, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), in which it became apparent years later, after the claimed state secrets document was declassified, that it did not implicate state secrets...." | |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.