Index:
[thread]
[date]
[subject]
[author]
From: Bryan Brooks <bab74@columbia.edu>
To : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 23:15:52 -0400
Post on Judge Demanding Response for Justice in NSA Spy Program Case
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C6882C.D35B6A80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Thursday, June 01, 2006
An airing of the NSA spying program
<http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/an_airing_on_th.
html>
07:04 PM | Lyle Denniston | Comments
<http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/an_airing_on_th.
html#comments> (19)
(This is another in a continuing series of reports on the impact that
Supreme Court rulings have on later cases. The dispute discussed here,
over the Executive Branch's power to head off lawsuits against the
government by claiming a "state secrets" privilege, can be traced back
to a post-Civil War decision in 1875, Totten v. U.S., and to the
landmark case on the privilege, U.S. v. Reynolds, in 1953. A somewhat
related though much narrower ruling came in March of last year, in Tenet
v. Doe, although the government does not rely upon that in this
controversy.)
A federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to make a legal
defense in a public court hearing of the National Security Agency's
program of communications monitoring during the war on terrorism -- a
program under challenge in federal courts across the nation. Senior U.S.
District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit on Wednesday denied a
Department request to put off a hearing on the merits of a legal
challenge in her Court until after she had ruled on the government's
claim that the case must be dismissed based on the "state secrets
privilege."
That is a significant rebuff to the Department's efforts, now spread out
in a number of cases, to put a swift end to claims in court that
President Bush acted illegally and unconstitutionally in authorizing the
NSA, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, to monitor calls or e-mails
suspected of being to or from terrorists. . In fact, the Detroit judge's
order is such a serious setback that the Justice Department might be
expected to try to challenge it with an immediate appeal to the Sixth
Circuit Court, and perhaps to the Supreme Court. Judge Taylor's action
amounted to significantly more than a case-management order.
In Judge Taylor's Court, a group of journalists, academics, attorneys
and non-profit organizations last January filed a sweeping lawsuit to
try to stop the NSA program. On March 9, they asked the judge to grant
them a victory without a trial (summary judgment), saying there were no
facts in dispute, leaving only legal questions about whether the program
satisfies two federal laws that limit government wiretapping that
reaches inside the U.S. The case is American Civil Liberties Union, et
al., v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service, et al.,
docket 06-10204, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan--Southern Division.
The Justice Department twice obtained postponements of deadlines for it
to respond formally to the summary judgment request. Then, without
having filed such a response, it moved on May 26 to dismiss the case
outright because, it argued, the case cannot go forward in any way
without risking the disclosure of national secrets. "The very subject
matter of this lawsuit is a state secret," it said. In fact, the
Department contended, the Court cannot even settle a dispute over the
"standing" of the challengers to bring their case without jeopardizing
secrets. "The resolution of these issues must be left to the political
branches of government," it asserted.
So, the Department asked Judge Taylor, along with its dismissal motion,
to put the summary judgment question on hold until after she had ruled
on the claimed privilege and the dismissal demand. Resolution of those
issues, it argued, "should precede any attempt to decide the merits."
The summary judgment motion, it added, "puts at issue the very question
of whether, as a result of the state secrets assertion, plaintiffs can
establish their standing and whether their claims can be decided on the
merits....Courts often recognize that preliminary issues should be
decided before the merits are addressed."
In an order that is available (to PACER subscribers) on the docket of
the case (as docket entry 44), the judge denied the motion for a stay,
said she would go ahead with a hearing on the summary judgment motion on
June 12 as she had previously planned, and suggested that the Justice
Department -- if it opted to attend the hearing -- could argue against
that motion even without filing a formal response to it. The judge gave
no explanation for these actions, although her order did imply some
discontent with the government's failure, after two postponements, to
respond to the summary judgment issue. It is the denial of the stay that
the Department presumably could attempt to attack on appeal.
Her order went on to require the challengers to respond to the dismissal
motion and the privilege claim by June 20, gave the Department a week
beyond that to file a reply, and scheduled those issues for a hearing
July 10.
(NOTE: Washington attorney [and former appellate law clerk] Adam White
has just published an article discussing the "state secrets" privilege.
It can be found here
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/282qr
ltw.asp> . A different perspective on the privilege, from a Center for
Constitutional Rights attorney, can be found here
<http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/05/state-secrets-privilege-and-e
xecutive.php> .
Bryan A. Brooks
Columbia Law School
Class of 2006
"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to
see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."
- MLK, Jr.
"Where purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable."
- Myles Munroe
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C6882C.D35B6A80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:sc=
hemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DProgId content=3DWord.Document>
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<meta name=3DOriginator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<!-- <link rel=3DFile-List href=3D"cid:filelist.xml@01C6882C.D2CD5B50"> -->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:DontDisplayPageBoundaries/>
<w:SpellingState>Clean</w:SpellingState>
<w:GrammarState>Clean</w:GrammarState>
<w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
<w:EnvelopeVis/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>9.35 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>6.35 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEve=
ry>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>2</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
h2
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-outline-level:2;
font-size:18.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
font-weight:bold;}
h3
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-outline-level:3;
font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.posted, li.posted, div.posted
{mso-style-name:posted;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:555043945;
mso-list-template-ids:67698717;
mso-list-style-name:Style1;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-text:"%2\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-text:"%3\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-text:"\(%4\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-text:"\(%5\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-text:"\(%6\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */=20
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple style=3D'tab-interval:.5in'>
<div class=3DSection1>
<h2><b><font size=3D5 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:18.=
0pt'>Thursday,
June 01, 2006<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></h2>
<h3 id=3Da001483><b><font size=3D4 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'=
font-size:
13.5pt'><a
href=3D"http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/an_airing_on=
_th.html"
id=3Dtitle>An airing of the NSA spying program</a><o:p></o:p></span></font>=
</b></h3>
<p class=3Dposted><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'fo=
nt-size:
12.0pt'>07:04 PM | Lyle Denniston | <a
href=3D"http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/an_airing_on=
_th.html#comments">Comments
(19)</a> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><strong><b><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-s=
ize:12.0pt'>(This
is another in a continuing series of reports on the impact that Supreme Cou=
rt
rulings have on later cases. The dispute discussed here, over the Executive
Branch's power to head off lawsuits against the government by claiming a
"state secrets" privilege, can be traced back to a post-Civil War
decision in 1875, </span></font></b></strong><em><b><i><font
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Totten v. U.S., <=
/span></font></i></b></em><strong><b><font
face=3D"Times New Roman">and to the landmark case on the privilege, </font>=
</b></strong><em><b><i><font
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>U.S. v. Reynolds<=
/span></font></i></b></em><strong><b><font
face=3D"Times New Roman">, in 1953. A somewhat related though much narrower
ruling came in March of last year, in </font></b></strong><em><b><i><font
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Tenet v. Doe</spa=
n></font></i></b></em><strong><b><font
face=3D"Times New Roman">, although the government does not rely upon that =
in
this controversy.)</font></b></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'=
>A federal
judge has ordered the Justice Department to make a legal defense in a public
court hearing of the National Security Agency's program of communications
monitoring during the war on terrorism -- a program under challenge in fede=
ral
courts across the nation. Senior U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of D=
etroit
on Wednesday denied a Department request to put off a hearing on the merits=
of
a legal challenge in her Court until after she had ruled on the government's
claim that the case must be dismissed based on the "state secrets
privilege."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'=
>That is a
significant rebuff to the Department's efforts, now spread out in a number =
of
cases, to put a swift end to claims in court that President Bush acted
illegally and unconstitutionally in authorizing the NSA, after the 2001
terrorist attacks, to monitor calls or e-mails suspected of being to or from
terrorists. . In fact, the Detroit judge's order is such a serious setback =
that
the Justice Department might be expected to try to challenge it with an
immediate appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court, and perhaps to the Supreme Cou=
rt.
Judge Taylor's action amounted to significantly more than a case-management
order.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'=
>In Judge
Taylor's Court, a group of journalists, academics, attorneys and non-profit
organizations last January filed a sweeping lawsuit to try to stop the NSA =
program.
On March 9, they asked the judge to grant them a victory without a trial
(summary judgment), saying there were no facts in dispute, leaving only leg=
al
questions about whether the program satisfies two federal laws that limit
government wiretapping that reaches inside the U.S. The case is <em><i><font
face=3D"Times New Roman">American Civil Liberties Union, et al., v. National
Security Agency/Central Security Service, et al.</font></i></em>, docket
06-10204, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan--Sout=
hern
Division.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'=
>The
Justice Department twice obtained postponements of deadlines for it to resp=
ond
formally to the summary judgment request. Then, without having filed such a
response, it moved on May 26 to dismiss the case outright because, it argue=
d,
the case cannot go forward in any way without risking the disclosure of
national secrets. "The very subject matter of this lawsuit is a state
secret," it said. In fact, the Department contended, the Court cannot =
even
settle a dispute over the "standing" of the challengers to bring
their case without jeopardizing secrets. "The resolution of these issu=
es
must be left to the political branches of government," it asserted.<o:=
p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'=
>So, the
Department asked Judge Taylor, along with its dismissal motion, to put the
summary judgment question on hold until after she had ruled on the claimed
privilege and the dismissal demand. Resolution of those issues, it argued,
"should precede any attempt to decide the merits." The summary
judgment motion, it added, "puts at issue the very question of whether=
, as
a result of the state secrets assertion, plaintiffs can establish their
standing and whether their claims can be decided on the merits....Courts of=
ten
recognize that preliminary issues should be decided before the merits are
addressed."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'=
>In an order
that is available (to PACER subscribers) on the docket of the case (as dock=
et
entry 44), the judge denied the motion for a stay, said she would go ahead =
with
a hearing on the summary judgment motion on June 12 as she had previously
planned, and suggested that the Justice Department -- if it opted to attend=
the
hearing -- could argue against that motion even without filing a formal
response to it. The judge gave no explanation for these actions, although h=
er
order did imply some discontent with the government's failure, after two
postponements, to respond to the summary judgment issue. It is the denial of
the stay that the Department presumably could attempt to attack on appeal.<=
o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'=
>Her order
went on to require the challengers to respond to the dismissal motion and t=
he
privilege claim by June 20, gave the Department a week beyond that to file a
reply, and scheduled those issues for a hearing July 10.<o:p></o:p></span><=
/font></p>
<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'=
>(NOTE:
Washington attorney [and former appellate law clerk] Adam White has just
published an article discussing the "state secrets" privilege. It=
can
be found <a
href=3D"http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/2=
82qrltw.asp">here</a>.
A different perspective on the privilege, from a Center for Constitutional
Rights attorney, can be found <a
href=3D"http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/05/state-secrets-privilege-a=
nd-executive.php">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:1=
0.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:1=
0.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D=
'font-size:
12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'>Bryan A. Brooks<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D=
'font-size:
12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'>Columbia Law School<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D=
'font-size:
12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'>Class of 2006<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D=
'font-size:
12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D=
'font-size:
12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'>"True compassion is more than flinging a coin=
to a
beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs
restructuring."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D=
'font-size:
12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'>- MLK, Jr.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D=
'font-size:
12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D=
'font-size:
12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'>“Where purpose is not known, abuse is
inevitable.”<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p=
></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D=
'font-size:
12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'>- Myles Munroe<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D=
'font-size:
12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D=
'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C6882C.D35B6A80--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
Index:
[thread]
[date]
[subject]
[author]