The U.S. government, namely the Obama administration, is quite upset with a federal judge for requiring an in camera review of State Secrets documents in the case of Guleet Mohamed v. Eric Holder (pdf), challenging the constitutionality of the “no fly” list.
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 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.
Thursday,
Judge Anthony J. Trenga, an
Article III federal judge 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.”
I don't think anybody knows exactly where this judge's bold move is going. Possible, subsequent scenarios range from an emergency appeal by the DoJ -- to -- a judgment by the court after review stating the government's State Secrets claim is invalid. In other words, the judge finds that the government is trying to hide guilt.
Steven Aftergood (who by the way deserves a shout out for his many years of indefatigable persistence getting 'classified' material declassified) is the founder of the website: Secrecy News
The story's here. Court Requires Review of State Secrets Documents
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.”
The court found that in many cases, when relying on government assertions, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assess the merits of those claims.
“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.
In Reynolds v. United States, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), it became apparent years later, after the claimed state secrets document was declassified, that it did not implicate state secrets.