Court Opinion

ID: 9572148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:39:01.65507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:40.553397
License: Public Domain

MINGE, Judge,
(concurring specially).
I concur in this opinion with one exception. I would not reach the question of whether the DPS has sufficiently demonstrated the seriousness and immediacy.of the threat of harm to support the rules in question. Since this decision invalidates the rules, this statement on seriousness and immediacy is dicta and that determination should be left to the DPS, the legislature and any subsequent court consideration of possible replacement rules. Certainly all of us, including appellate judges, agree that our nation faces threats from terrorists. The tragedy of the September 11, 2001, airplane hijackings and crashes are a grim reminder that we cannot be complacent. However, at the same time we are keenly aware that some past claims of seriousness and immediacy have been used to justify policies which in retrospect have been discredited. Compare Korematsu v. U.S., 328 U.S. 214, 65 S.Ct. 193, 89 L.Ed. 194 (1944) (finding constitutional the internment of Japanese-Americans during the second world war) with Civil Liberties Act of 1988, Pub.L. No. 100-383, 102 Stat. 903 (apologizing for the internment of Japanese-Americans and making restitution to internment survivors).