Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-09-05236/USCOURTS-caDC-09-05236-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 8, 2009 Decided January 8, 2010

Reissued October 6, 2010

No. 09-5236

DJAMEL AMEZIANE, DETAINEE, GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL 

STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY CUBA,

APPELLEE

v.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:05-cv-00392-UNA)

August E. Flentje, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 

argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were 

Douglas N. Letter and Robert M. Loeb, Attorneys.

J. Wells Dixon argued the cause for appellee. With him 

on the brief were Shayana D. Kadidal and Pardiss Kebriaei.

Before: GINSBURG, BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit 

Judges.

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 1 of 19
2

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN.

BROWN, Circuit Judge: This case presents another 

variation on the detainee theme, raising questions about what 

information ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' can be protected 

from public disclosure when the detainee is anxious to reveal 

it. These questions arise because the government, ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' has sought to designate ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' as 

“protected” information under the governing protective order. 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' The district court sided with Ameziane and the 

government appealed. We reverse.

I

Ameziane, an Algerian citizen, has been held at the U.S. 

Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since 2002. In 2005, 

he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241. This action was subject to a protective order

governing common procedural issues in all Guantanamo 

habeas cases. See In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., 577 

F. Supp. 2d 143 (D.D.C. 2008) (Protective Order). Under the 

Protective Order, “protected” information may not be 

disclosed to anyone other than the petitioner’s counsel and the 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 2 of 19
3

court, unless the government authorizes wider disclosure. Id.

at 151 (¶ 35). To designate information as protected, the 

government must attempt to reach an agreement with the 

petitioner’s counsel, and if that fails, file a motion with the 

court. Id. (¶ 34).

On January 22, 2009, the President issued an Executive 

Order directing the closure of the Guantanamo detention 

facility “as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from 

the date of this order,” ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' Exec. Order No. 

13,492, 74 Fed. Reg. 4897, ''' ''' ''' ''' (Jan. 22, 2009). ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' 

'' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ' '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' On June 15, the government filed 

a coordinated motion ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' 

'' ''' ''' ''' seeking to designate ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' as “protected” 

information. In support of the motion, the government 

submitted a declaration by ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '' 

' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 3 of 19
4

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

At a hearing on June 30, the district court denied the 

government’s motion to protect ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ' '' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' . The court concluded the government had 

failed to make a “particularized showing” because the ''' ''' ''' 

Declaration had “nothing . . . to do with this case in 

particular,” and protested that allowing Ameziane to disclose

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' Transcript of Motion Hearing ''' ''' 

''' Ameziane v. Obama, No. 05-cv-392 (D.D.C. June 30, 

2009) (June 30 Tr.). ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' '''' 

'''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' '''''' ''' '' ''' ''' The court issued a written order including 

a one-week stay. Order, Ameziane v. Obama, No. 05-cv-392

(D.D.C. June 30, 2009) (June 30 Order).

On July 7, the government sought to extend the stay for

an additional week; the district court rejected the request, see

Transcript of Motion Hearing ''' ''' ''' , Ameziane v. Obama, 

No. 05-cv-392 (D.D.C. July 7, 2009); and the government 

filed an interlocutory appeal and moved this court for an 

emergency stay of the district court’s order.

The district court issued a written opinion explaining the

refusal to extend its stay. Mem. Op. & Order, Ameziane v. 

Obama, No. 05-cv-392 (D.D.C July 8, 2009) (July 8 Op.). 

The court stated “[t]he government’s rationale for protecting 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 4 of 19
5

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' [was] riddled with 

contradictions.” Id. at 5. It disregarded the ''' ''' Declaration 

because it “provide[d] no specificity ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' The court was not 

“convinced” by the government’s “speculative and

conclusory” national security concerns. Id. at 7. “Most 

importantly,” the court determined, “the record demonstrates 

that protecting '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' would serve 

little purpose” because ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

On July 16, we granted a stay pending appeal.

II

We first consider whether we lack subject-matter 

jurisdiction because the dispute is moot or, alternatively,

because the district court’s order was not a final decision from 

which the government could immediately appeal.

A

Ameziane argues this appeal is moot because ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' “‘Federal courts lack jurisdiction to 

decide moot cases because their constitutional authority 

extends only to actual cases or controversies.’” Larsen v. 

U.S. Navy, 525 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Iron 

Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983)). “[A] 

case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or 

the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” 

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). However, 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 5 of 19
6

a case is not moot unless it is “‘impossible for the court to 

grant any effectual relief whatever.’” Cody v. Cox, 509 F.3d 

606, 608 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Church of Scientology of 

Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (internal 

quotation marks omitted)).

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' 

'''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' 

'''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' 

'''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' 

'''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

Thus, this appeal is not moot ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' The district court ordered, first, 

“that petitioner’s motion to unseal” ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' and all related or 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 6 of 19
7

derivative documents” would be granted; second, “that the 

government’s motion to designate ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' . . . as ‘protected’ information” would be denied; and 

third, that “petitioner and his counsel may publicly disclose 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' 

' ' ' ''' ''' June 30 Order ''' ''' ''''.

As an initial matter, in this court, Ameziane has decided 

not to defend much of the district court’s order: “[Ameziane] 

does not seek to disclose the District Court pleadings or 

transcripts regarding this issue, or the parties’ appellate briefs, 

or any information regarding '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' . . . . [A]ll that is at issue in this 

appeal, is whether Ameziane ‘may publicly disclose ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' '''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ” Appellee’s Br. ''' (quoting June 30 Order ''' '''). 

Accordingly, since both parties agree “the District Court 

pleadings [and] transcripts regarding this issue,” “the parties’ 

appellate briefs,” and “any information regarding '' ' ' ''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''” should be 

protected, id., the district court’s order is reversed to the 

extent it unsealed and declined to protect such material.

There remains one key document that, if unsealed, ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''': the district court order itself. However, there 

is some ambiguity whether Ameziane seeks to unseal this 

order. He quotes from the order in arguing his entitlement to 

“‘publicly disclose ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''',’” 

Appellee’s Br. ''' (quoting June 30 Order ''' ''' ), thus 

suggesting Ameziane’s counsel intends to point to the order 

itself ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '''

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 7 of 19
8

Yet, at oral argument, Ameziane’s counsel stated he was 

“not seeking the unsealing of records.” Transcript of Oral 

Argument at 15:13–16. It is not clear whether this reference 

to “records” included the district court order, or whether it 

referred only to the documents listed in Ameziane’s brief and 

discussed above. But even assuming the district court order 

will remain sealed, this appeal is not moot. Counsel stated 

unambiguously that he sought “to be able to say ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' 

''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' 

''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

'''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ' '' ''' '''

B

Nor do we lack jurisdiction because the district court’s 

order was not “final.” Courts of appeals have jurisdiction of 

appeals from “all final decisions” of district courts. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, an 

interlocutory order qualifies as “final” under § 1291 if it (1) 

conclusively determines the disputed question, (2) resolves an 

important issue completely separate from the merits of the 

action, and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 8 of 19
9

final judgment. See Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 

(2006).

These conditions, though “stringent,” see id., are satisfied

in this case. As Ameziane concedes, the first requirement is 

satisfied because the district court’s order conclusively 

determined that ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' would not be 

protected under the Protective Order. Second, this issue is

entirely separate from the merits of Ameziane’s habeas

action. The public disclosure of ''' ''' ' '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' has no relevance to the underlying question 

on the merits, i.e., whether he has been lawfully detained. 

And given the foreign relations and national security concerns 

raised in the ''' ''' ''' Declaration, we have no difficulty finding 

this issue sufficiently “important” to warrant immediate

appellate review. See Al Odah v. United States, 559 F.3d 539, 

543–44 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (holding that order mandating 

disclosure of classified information to habeas petitioners’

counsel was “an important issue entirely separate from the 

merits of this case”). Finally, the district court’s order would 

be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment 

because once ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' is revealed publicly, the disclosure 

cannot be undone. See id. at 544. Thus, we have subjectmatter jurisdiction.

III

While we review a district court’s decision to seal or 

unseal documents, or to issue or refuse to issue a protective 

order, for abuse of discretion, we review de novo any errors 

of law upon which the court relied in exercising its discretion. 

See, e.g., United States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436, 456–57 (D.C. 

Cir. 2006) (reviewing issuance of protective order de novo 

rather than for abuse of discretion because court applied 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 9 of 19
10

incorrect legal standard); United States v. El-Sayegh, 131 

F.3d 158, 160 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (reviewing decision to unseal 

guilty plea de novo rather than for abuse of discretion because 

court’s decision was premised on legal error); see also Koon 

v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996) (“A district court by 

definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of 

law.”). Here, the district court’s explanations indicate de 

novo review is appropriate.

A

It is “our customary policy” to accord “deference to the 

President in matters of foreign affairs.” Jama v. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 348 (2005). And 

“consistent with our rule of deference, it is within the role of 

the executive to acquire and exercise the expertise of 

protecting national security. It is not within the role of the 

courts to second-guess executive judgments made in 

furtherance of that branch’s proper role.” Bismullah v. Gates,

501 F.3d 178, 187–88 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation 

marks omitted), vacated on other grounds, Gates v. 

Bismullah, 128 S. Ct. 2960 (2008).

But detainee cases are unique. Because of the 

independent role carved out for the judiciary, and our

concomitant obligation to balance the needs of the 

government against the rights of the detainee, and also to 

preserve to the extent feasible the traditional right of public 

access to judicial records grounded in the First Amendment, 

we exercise greater caution in deciding to defer. See, e.g., 

Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229, 2276–77 (2008). In the 

context of requests by the government to protect sensitive 

information, we have explained the showing the government 

must make to trigger judicial deference.

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 10 of 19
11

In Bismullah v. Gates, we rejected the government’s 

assertion of unilateral authority to designate information as 

“protected” and held “the Government must give the court a 

basis for withholding . . . from public view” nonclassified 

information it seeks to protect. 501 F.3d at 188. In Parhat v. 

Gates, we explained that a valid “basis for withholding” 

would include, at a minimum, a “specific,” “tailored”

rationale for protecting a general category of information, and 

a precise designation of each particular item of information 

that purportedly “falls within the categor[y] . . . described.” 

532 F.3d 834, 853 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In other words, the 

government first must demonstrate what kind of information 

requires protection and why, and then must show exactly what

information in the case at hand it seeks to protect.

In Parhat, the government failed to satisfy this twofold 

showing. The government began by describing two broad 

categories—“(1) any names and/or identifying information of 

United States Government personnel, and (2) any sensitive 

law enforcement information”—and provided a “rationale for 

protection [that was] brief” and “relie[d] solely on spare, 

generic assertions of the need to protect information in the 

two categories.” Id. at 852–53 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). For instance, the government merely asserted in 

conclusory fashion that disclosing information in the first 

category would “heighten[]” the risks to the safety of U.S. 

government personnel, and that disclosing information in the 

second category would “harm the Government’s ongoing law 

enforcement activities related to the global war against al 

Qaeda and its supporters.” Id. at 852. These “generic claims” 

failed to satisfy the government’s burden of providing “an 

explanation tailored to the specific information at issue.” Id.

at 853.

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 11 of 19
12

Second, the government consigned all government 

personnel mentioned in the record to the first category, and 

simply marked documents “Law Enforcement Sensitive” or 

“LES” to designate the second category. Id. at 852–53. We 

found both sets of designations imprecise and overinclusive. 

For instance, “some ‘U.S. Government personnel’ . . . [were] 

so publicly associated with Guantanamo that protected status 

would plainly be unwarranted.” Id. at 853. And we noted 

that the term “Law Enforcement Sensitive” was so vague that 

“at least seven different federal agencies define[d] it 

differently.” Id. Thus, even if the government had provided 

sufficient rationales for protecting information in the two 

categories, it nonetheless failed to make its designations with 

sufficient precision to allow the court to “determine whether 

the information it ha[d] designated properly f[ell] within the 

categories it ha[d] described.” Id.

Here, the district court failed properly to apply Parhat’s 

two-part standard. Rather than evaluating the government’s 

proposed category and proffered rationale, and then 

determining whether ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

fell into that category, the court faulted ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' for 

“provid[ing] no specificity as to why ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' must be protected or why his counsel should be 

prohibited from using the information ''' ''' ''' '' ' '''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' July 8 Op. ''' ''' (emphasis 

added). Similarly, in its oral ruling, the court found the 

government had failed to make a “particularized showing” 

because the ''' ''' Declaration had “nothing . . . to do with this 

case in particular.” June 30 Tr. '''' ''' '''. However, Parhat did 

not require the government to provide a rationale for 

protection that was so specific as to preclude any generalized 

categorization. Rather, Parhat left room for categorized 

requests in appropriate circumstances. Of course, the 

narrower the category for which the government seeks 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 12 of 19
13

protection, the more likely the government’s rationale will be 

sufficiently tailored. But the district court erred by construing 

Parhat to require a specific and distinct rationale addressed to 

each detainee’s situation.

There is a sharp contrast between the government’s 

showing in this case and its showing in Parhat. Unlike the

two broad categories outlined in Parhat, here the government 

requested protection for a single, limited category: ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' and all related or derivative documents. 

See July 8 Op. ''' ''' '''. And unlike the “spare, generic 

assertions” with which the government justified its request in 

Parhat, 532 F.3d at 853, here the government provided a 

detailed rationale tailored specifically to the information in 

the narrow category.

The ''' ''' ''' Declaration logically explained why failing to 

protect ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' was likely to harm the 

government’s foreign relations and national security interests. 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 13 of 19
14

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' Because this 

detailed rationale was tailored specifically to the narrow 

category of information for which the government requested 

protection, the government satisfied the first showing required 

by Parhat.

The government also satisfied the second part of the

Parhat standard because we face no difficulty “determin[ing] 

whether the information [the government] has designated 

properly falls within the categor[y] it has described.” Parhat, 

532 F.3d at 853. The government designated for protection a 

precise item of information—''' ''' ''' ' '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''—

that indisputably falls into the narrow category of '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''. Indeed, this case fits squarely within the 

government’s rationale for protection. Although the 

government has determined ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' As the ''' ''' Declaration explains, ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 14 of 19
15

'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' 

''''' ''' ''' ''' ' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''. Thus, the government 

met its burden for protection under Parhat.

B

Because the government satisfied Parhat, the district 

court was required to defer to the government’s assessment of 

the harm to foreign relations and national security that would 

result from officially disclosing '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''. As we explained in Fitzgibbon, the failure to 

give deference when it is due is error. 911 F.2d at 755. 

There, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, the 

district court ordered the CIA to disclose information about a 

former CIA station location, over the CIA’s objection that 

such disclosure would cause harm to national security. Id. at 

758–59. We faulted the district court for “essentially 

perform[ing] its own calculus as to whether or not harm to the 

national security . . . would result from disclosure” of the 

information, and held it should have “accord[ed] substantial 

weight and deference” to the Executive Branch’s 

“determination of possible harm.” Id. at 766. Thus, 

“declin[ing] to adopt the abuse-of-discretion review that [the 

plaintiff] urge[d] upon us,” we reversed. Id.

Here, the district court simply declared: 

I don’t understand how [declining to protect 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ] will 

interfere in anything. . . . ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 15 of 19
16

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

June 30 Tr. ''' ''' ''' ''' ; see also July 8 Op. ''' ''' (rejecting as 

“speculative and conclusory” government’s “arguments that 

the release ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' would cause 

significant harm to the interests of the government”). It is not 

entirely clear why the district court found the ''' ''' ''' 

Declaration so baffling. As discussed above, it provided a 

detailed and logical explanation of the impact of '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' on the government’s foreign relations and national 

security interests. Parhat did not free courts to substitute 

their own policy judgments for those of the executive. The 

district court was not entitled to toss the ''' ''' ''' Declaration 

aside merely because it disagreed with its premise. Deference 

required acknowledging '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' , not the 

judiciary, is tasked with undertaking ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' '' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''', and that 

the Executive Branch officials bearing this responsibility 

possess far greater resources and aptitude than the judiciary 

for determining what will aid, and what will undermine, their 

mission. The district court’s inability to “understand” how

permitting ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' “will interfere in anything,”

June 30 Tr. ''' ''' ''', did not license the court to “perform[] its 

own calculus as to whether or not harm to the national 

security . . . would result from [the] disclosure,” Fitzgibbon, 

911 F.2d at 766.

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 16 of 19
17

In particular, the district court erred by elevating

Ameziane’s interest ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' over the government’s interest in ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' Such prioritizing was an executive prerogative, and 

it was “not within the role of the [district] court[] to secondguess executive judgments made in furtherance of that 

branch’s proper role.” Bismullah, 501 F.3d at 187–88 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Crucially, this does not 

mean Ameziane never will have the opportunity to ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' . Rather, it 

means only that those ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' The failure to accord 

“substantial weight and deference,” Fitzgibbon, 911 F.2d at 

766, to the government’s assessment of its foreign relations 

and national security interests was error.

C

Finally, the district court erred by basing its ruling on an 

inappropriate factor. The court held that the “[m]ost 

important[]” factor weighing against the government’s 

request for protection was that “protecting ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' 

''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' would serve little purpose” because ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' July 8 Op. ''' ''' . The first 

problem with the district court’s approach is ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 17 of 19
18

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

'''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

'''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

'''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' 

'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' 

''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

''' ''' ''' ''' ''''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' 

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 18 of 19
19

IV

For the foregoing reasons, the government’s motion to 

designate ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' as 

“protected” information under the Protective Order should 

have been granted. Thus, the order of the district court is

Reversed.

USCA Case #09-5236 Document #1270270 Filed: 10/06/2010 Page 19 of 19