Justice Gorsuch Struggles to Get a 'Straight Answer' From Government Lawyer in State Secrets Case
"I'm asking much more directly, and I'd just really appreciate a straight answer to this," Gorsuch said at one point.
October 06, 2021 at 03:07 PM
5 minute read
Justice Neil Gorsuch tangled with the attorney for the United States on Wednesday as he repeatedly asked for a "direct" answer to a question that could cut through the complexity and confusion of a state secrets case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Will the government make [Abu Zubaydah] available to testify as to his treatment on those dates?" Gorsuch asked, referring to when the Guantanamo detainee was tortured at a CIA black site in Poland in 2002.
Gorsuch's repeated question to acting U.S. Solicitor General Brian Fletcher came nearly at the end of 75 minutes of oral argument. With so much information about Zubaydah's torture now public knowledge, the justices struggled with what exactly the government was trying to protect, and what Zubaydah's lawyers needed from two former federal contractors who were present at the torture site.
Fletcher argued throughout his argument that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was wrong to reject the government's assertion that the testimony sought by Zubaydah would seriously harm national security and thus was protected by the state secrets privilege.
"Our nation's covert intelligence partnerships depend on our partners' trust that we will keep those relationships confidential," Fletcher told the justices. "Respondents seek discovery that would compel a breach of that trust by confirming or denying the existence of an alleged CIA facility in Poland."
Because the testimony being sought by Zubaydah would be used in a criminal investigation by a Polish prosecutor, he argued, there is no way to keep the location of the torture confidential.
The justices then probed whether code words could be used to disguise the location and other ways to get the information without mentioning the location. But Fletcher said, "It doesn't avoid the fundamental problem. When the whole proceeding has been about Poland, you can't take it out at this late date."
But Zubaydah's counsel, David Klein of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, said, "I'm not planning to ask 'did it happen in Poland?' The Polish prosecutor has evidence on that. What he does need to know is what happened inside Zubaydah's cell, what was he fed, what was his medical condition, was he tortured? Those topics have been declassified and the two contractors have testified about this before."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked why the contractors are needed if the information is not secret.
Klein replied their testimony was needed to show the torture occurred on the dates Zubaydah was in Poland.
Breyer was the first justice to ask Klein why Zubaydah could not say what happened. Klein answered, "He can't testify because he is being held incommunicado." His client's habeas petition, Klein told Breyer, has been pending in federal court for 14 years.
"We're not talking about a secret anymore, but a governmental wish not to assist this Polish investigation," Klein argued.
As the arguments drew to a close, Gorsuch leaned forward with what he called his "up-front" question to Fletcher: " What is the government's objection to the witness testifying to his own treatment and not requiring any admission from the government of any kind?"
Fletcher began a lengthy answer about Zubaydah not being incommunicado but subject to similar restrictions applying to Guantanamo detainees, but Gorsuch interrupted him, saying, "That's not really answering my question, I don't think … But I'm asking much more directly, will the government make the petitioner available to testify on this subject?"
Fletcher tried again, answering Zubaydah might be able to testify but under the same terms, rules and procedures for communicating with counsel or others, including no classified information. Breyer then jumped in, saying, "The same terms? Look, I don't understand why he's still there after 14 years. Why not do just what Justice Gorsuch says? Just say, 'hey, you want to ask what happened, ask him what happened?'"
Fletcher tried again to explain the Guantanamo regime and a protective order in the habeas litigation, but Gorsuch again stepped in, saying, "I'm asking much more directly, and I'd just really appreciate a straight answer to this: will the government make plaintiff available to testify as to his treatment during these dates?"
Fletcher said he couldn't answer because no request had been made. Gorsuch said, "Gosh, this case has been litigated for years and all the way up to the Supreme Court and you haven't considered whether that's an off-ramp that the government could provide that would obviate the need for any of this?"
Justice Sonia Sotomayor interjected that Fletcher was "begging the question." Inherent in Gorsuch's question, she said, was whether the government would allow Zubaydah to testify without asserting the state secret or other privileges. "Yes or no. That's all we're looking for," she said.
Justice Samuel Alito interrupted to question Fletcher about the "scope of his authority," in a not-so-subtle effort to support him. Fletcher said because the question had not been raised in the litigation, he wasn't prepared to answer for the United States, especially on a matter of national security.
Gorsuch did get a commitment from Fletcher to seek a "direct answer" to his question about allowing Zubaydah to testify about his torture on key dates in 2002-03.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhen Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Supreme Court Drops Facebook's Appeal in Securities Case as 'Improvidently Granted'
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250