Opinion ID: 1460165
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counsel Access to Classified Information

Text: The Government proposes to turn over to counsel for a petitioner only information that was presented to the CSRT and that the Government has determined petitioners' counsel has a `need to know,' which in practice the Government anticipates will mean turning over all the Government Information with limited exceptions for information that pertains to anyone other than the detainee, highly sensitive information, and information pertaining to a highly sensitive source. Such highly sensitive information, which the Government represents will rarely be found and redacted, would be made available to the court ex parte and in camera in the event the detainee seeks judicial review of his status determination. Petitioners' counsel, each of whom has a security clearance, contend they have a need to know all information about their clients' cases and related cases in order effectively to participate in the adversarial process of review in court. Petitioners argue that ex parte and in camera review of highly sensitive classified information, as the Government proposes, is not an adequate substitute for the judgment of counsel in identifying exculpatory evidence and evidence that the Tribunal, the Recorder, or the Personal Representative failed to comply with the procedures specified for the conduct of a CSRT. We think it clear that this court cannot discharge its responsibility under the DTA, particularly its responsibility to determine whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the Tribunal's determination, unless a petitioner's counsel has access to as much as is practical of the classified information regarding his client. Counsel simply cannot argue, nor can the court determine, whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the Tribunal's status determination without seeing all the evidence. Therefore, we presume counsel for a detainee has a need to know all Government Information concerning his client, not just the portions of the Government Information presented to the Tribunal. That presumption is overcome to the extent the Government seeks to withhold from counsel highly sensitive information, or information pertaining to a highly sensitive source or to anyone other than the detainee but presents such evidence to the court ex parte and in camera. Therefore, as required in the Status Quo Order, except for good cause shown, the Government shall provide notice to counsel for the petitioners on the same day it files such information ex parte. The court does not require the Government to disclose such information to counsel because, consistent with our rule of deference, [i]t 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. Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 932 (D.C.Cir.2003); Stillman v. CIA, 319 F.3d 546, 548 (D.C.Cir.2003) (Precisely because it is often difficult for a court to review the classification of national security information, `[w]e anticipate that in camera review of affidavits, followed if necessary by further judicial inquiry, will be the norm'). The Government also proposes unilaterally to determine whether information is protected, meaning that petitioners' counsel must keep it confidential and file under seal any document containing such information. For example, the Government would designate as protected information reasonably expected to increase the threat of injury or harm to any person and information already designated by the Government to be For Official Use Only or Law Enforcement Sensitive. It is the court, not the Government, that has discretion to seal a judicial record, cf. United States v. El-Sayegh, 131 F.3d 158, 160 (D.C.Cir.1997) (The decision whether to seal a judicial record is . . . committed to the discretion of the district court), which the public ordinarily has the right to inspect and copy, Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). Therefore, insofar as a party seeks to file with the court nonclassified information the Government believes should be protected, the Government must give the court a basis for withholding it from public view.