Opinion ID: 3011956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Creppy Directive

Text: Shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the President ordered a worldwide investigation into those atrocities and related terrorist threats to the United States. Over the course of this ongoing investigation, the government has become aware of numerous aliens who are subject to removal from the United States for violating immigration laws. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has detained and initiated removal proceedings against many of these individuals. The Department of Justice, which oversees the INS, has identified some aliens whose situations are particularly sensitive and designated their hearings special interest cases. According to Dale L. Watson, the FBI’s Executive Assistant Director for Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence, the designated aliens might have connections with, or possess information pertaining to, terrorist activities against the United States. (Watson Dec.) For example, special interest cases include aliens who had close associations with the September 11 hijackers or who themselves have associated with al Qaeda or related terrorist groups. The Department of Justice has reviewed these designations periodically and removed them in many cases that it determined were less sensitive than previously believed. For those cases that retain the special interest designation, however, Chief Immigration Judge Creppy issued a memorandum (the Creppy Directive) implementing heightened security measures.1 The Directive _________________________________________________________________ 1. The Immigration and Nationality Act charges the Attorney General with the administration and enforcement ofall [ ] laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens. 8 U.S.C. S 1103(a) (1994). The Act authorizes the Attorney General to remove aliens from the United States for various reasons, including violation of the immigration laws. 8 requires immigration judges to close the hearing[s] to the public, and to avoid discussing the case[s] or otherwise disclosing any information about the case[s] to anyone outside the Immigration Court. It further instructs that [t]he courtroom must be closed for these cases -- no visitors, no family, and no press, and explains that the restriction even includes confirming or denying whether such a case is on the docket or scheduled for a hearing. In short, the Directive contemplates a complete information blackout along both substantive and procedural dimensions. In closing special interest deportation hearings, the Government’s stated purpose is to avoid disclosing potentially sensitive information to those who may pose an ongoing security threat to the United States and its interests. The Government represents that if evidence is offered about a particular phone number link between a detainee and a number connected to a terrorist organization or member, the terrorists will be on notice that the United States is now aware of the link and may even be able to determine what sources and methods the United States used to become aware of that link. (Watson Declaration.) Equally important, however, is information that might appear innocuous in isolation [but that] can be fit into a bigger picture by terrorist groups in order to thwart the Government’s efforts to investigate and prevent terrorism. (Id.) For example, information about how and _________________________________________________________________ Id. at S 1231. It also permits him to prescribe such regulations . . . as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority, id. at S 1103(a)(3), and provides for removal proceedings to be conducted by immigration judges within the Executive Branch under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General. Id. Pursuant to this authority, the Attorney General in 1964 promulgated a regulation governing public access to removal and other administrative hearings that has remained substantially unchanged. It mandates the closure of certain hearings, such as those involving abused alien children, and permits the closure of all other hearings to protect witnesses, parties, or the public interest. 8 C.F.R. 3.27 (2002) (modern codification). The Creppy Directive was issued pursuant to this regulation. 9 why special interest aliens were detained would allow the terrorist organizations to discern patterns and methods of investigation; information about how such aliens entered the country would allow the terrorist organization to see patterns of entry, what works and what doesn’t; and information about what evidence the United States has against members of a particular cell collectively would reveal to the terrorist organization which of its cells have been significantly compromised. (Id.) The Government offers a litany of harms that might flow from open hearings. Most obviously, terrorist organizations could alter future attack plans, or devise new, easier ways to enter the country through channels they learn are relatively unguarded by the Department of Justice. They might also obstruct or disrupt pending proceedings by destroying evidence, threatening potential witnesses, or targeting the hearings themselves. Finally, if the government cannot guarantee a closed hearing, aliens might be deterred from cooperating with the ongoing investigation. See infra.